Really? That's your snappy come-back? Just blow of Honan's gross fictionalization with a counter accusation?

So you caught out this Honan!

But: how does this make any kind of case for Oxford?

And how does it weaken the case for the Strat man?

You may find some loose scholarship here and there, but that simply shows there exists loose scholarship. It's really not germane to the authorship issue.

I wasn't giving a counter accusation, I was giving an instance of Oxfordian gross fictionalization.

If you feel free to use what you feel are examples, then surely I am - unless you think we should play by different rules.


Morella.

There are three separate issues: 1) the case against (or for) Shaksper; 2) the case for (or against) Oxford; 3) the ostensible superiority of orthodox scholarship. The heading of the discussion is “Shaksper’s education” (which, by the way, must be distinguished from Shakespeare’s education). An argument against Shaksper should not be expected to “make any kind of case for Oxford”, though perhaps it could. But, we have clearly crossed over into the argument against orthodox scholarship, and we have Honan as an example, not merely as someone who makes unbelievable use of speculation, but as someone who is blatantly hypocritical about it, as Stratfordians generally are.

How does this, “weaken the case for the Strat man?” Is there “a case” for the Strat man? I mean a case that goes beyond the generally accepted evidence of the FF, the will, and the monument. Is there a “case” that he was educated? Is there a serious “case” for how he gained all of Shakespeare’s specialized knowledge (law, falconry, sailing, etc.)? No, beyond speculation there is no case for any of this. There is only speculation, speculation, speculation, founded on the shallowest inspection of the facts and circumstances without any consideration, for example, for the problem of creative development. Point me to a Stratfordian biography that deals with that problem, quoting reliable sources from specialists in that field.

You pass off the problem saying that “loose scholarship”, “here and there”, isn’t “germane to the authorship issue”. Really? Well, it’s not just “here and there”, it’s everywhere, in every Shaksper biography I’ve found (roughly fifty), and it is found in the most critical scholarship such as T. W. Baldwin’s Small Latine and lesse Greeke, in his most important conclusions. Stratfordian scholarship is awash in bogus scholarship in a sea of speculation. Stratfordians posture constantly as “genuine scholars”, superior to skeptics and critics (we hear it again and again from Pistol), and, if one takes the time to look, their scholarship is "loose" to the point of being a disgrace.

Lucky for us someone was born with the mental perspicuity that has obviously been lacking in the scholarly community for the past 300 years or so. I wonder why everybody else is over there and you're in your corner with just a few other like-minded cranks? Tell us again about the new paradigm just around the corner.

So, Pistol has nothing substantive to say. How about a counter-punch on the 'curriculum standardized by law', and that 'we know what was taught in the Stratford grammar school'. That's all factual right, proven beyond a doubt? Lots of reliable sources to quote on that eh? Better to stick with the insults Tom.

I know this thread has devolved into an argument about those nasty, lying Shakespeare biographers, but if you're still interested in Shakespeare's education and the Oxfordian mischaracterizations of it, you might want to read this discussion from back when I impersonated a British university don (and you have to wonder why that was so easy to do): http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ubb...3204&page=1

I took Pistol up on his offer and read his little essay, per his link.

Noting that even back then Pistol could not resist peppering his statements with insults, he presents himself as Looney’s superior in knowledge of the grammar school and classicl literature. His point is to dispute Shakespeare’s “rarified classical learning” and Looney’s opinion of it. He advises us that:

“Now I myself have not been able to find any classical learning in Shakespeare beyond what was available at the standard Elizabethan grammar school,”

Pistol lines himself up with “many other educated men” and he explains how he stands apart from men who are “semi-educated, ignorant, or stupid,” The main men he aligns himself with are Baldwin and Cressy, and he would have us believe that, “Indeed, the curriculum for free grammar schools throughout the kingdom…was dictated by law,” This claim deserves special attention.

We will be so bold as to inform the misinformed (including Pistol, who by now should know better) that the “law” merely prescribed a few texts for grammatical instruction. Pistol continues, “and the very curriculum that was prescribed is that which appears in Shakespeare’s works.” True if we are referring to Lily’s grammar (as Pistol mentions). But, not true for what Pistol tells us later, “The Elizabethan grammar school curriculum went on from Lily to study Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence and Seneca, all of which are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon.”

These titles/authors may or may not have been used in Stratford. Baldwin infers that they were based on working backwards from Shakespeare’s sources and by assuming that curriculum lists in the elite schools would have applied to common grammar schools. This is refuted by common sense, but more specifically, by looking at surviving lists from Rotherham and Harrows and Zouch.

Pistol says, “And Shakespeare alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended from the age of 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite to enrolling in grammar school. But to avoid tedium I will not get into all that at present.”

The one aspect of basic education in England that was practically standardized and universal was the use of the basic texts, tools, and methods for beginners, for common grammar schools and the children of nobility. So, on the basis of Shakespeare’s reference to those, he could truly have been a commoner or a nobleman.

Pistol says, “At this point I would like to invite any reader who disagrees with my conclusion to display some examples of Shakespeare’s work that evidence more than a grammar school education.”

Taking him up on his invitation, let’s just start with Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Ovid is not found on the lists for Rotherman or Harrows. Rotherham has a total of 4 literary texts on its list. Why should be assume that Ovid, or any other classical literary text, was available in Stratford?

Lesson: it is not sufficient to simply read Baldwin and Cressy to confirm what you have already decided is true. It is necessary to read Baldwin and Cressy carefully and critically and to compare them with other experts. In the more than 70 years that have passed since Baldwin published his two-volume tomb, it appears that not a single Stratfordian has bothered to really read him.

Correction: I meant over 60 years.

I have a question for you, stonecastle - it is part of the continuum. What is your personal knowledge of the Warwickshire dialect? I don't want to know whom you've read - I want to know what you know, after all it is part of your book.


Morella.

p xiii: http://www.archive.org/stream/publicationsdugd05dugduoft#page/n21/mode/2up

I touch on the subject of Shaksper's Warwickshire in a very short subchapter, relying on several sources. I have no "personal knowledge" or expertise in the subject. I make no attempt to corrolate that dialect to the works.

I do find this interesting. In the link you provided, to page xiii (electronic page 22), we find a curiously worded passage, in which Fripp says,

“The instruction to Smart by the Stratford corporation in 1554 permitted an easier examination. The founder of Witton laid it down in 1557…”

Smart is presumably Peter Smart of Stratford, a longtime member of the corporation. One might infer from the sentence that Smart was the “founder of Witton”. That is not the case. The founder of Witton was Sir John Dean, and Witton was a school of a higher class than Stratford. The “instruction” that Fripp quotes is from Witton, not Stratford. But, Fripp says the “instruction” was “to Smart by the corporation”. What does this mean? I will say what I think it means, that the corporation of Stratford borrowed an “instruction” from Witton, which, as a practical matter made perfectly good sense (why reinvent the wheel?) But Fripp doesn’t provide any further documentation or quotes from documentation pursuant to the 1554 founding of the grammar school. We will come back to this in a moment. In fact the “curriculum” that is listed (which includes Ovid etc.) is for Witton and not for Stratford. Again, as a practical matter, it makes perfectly good sense for Stratford to have borrowed an “instruction” from another school. That does not, by any means, insure that the full “curriculum” from such an “instruction” would have been implemented. The cost of such texts being high, and a common grammar school having limited resources, we see from the examples of Rotherham and Harrows that other schools got by with as few as 4 literary texts and without Ovid. However, let us look one more time at what Fripp said:

“The instruction to Smart by the Stratford corporation in 1554 permitted an easier examination. The founder of Witton laid it down in 1557…”

Perhaps you can explain how the “instruction to Smart” in 1554 incorporated something laid down at Witton in 1557?

The bottom line is this: there is no documentary or factual basis upon which say that we know what literary texts were taught in the Stratford grammar school or other schools of that class and there is no reason to suppose that the “curriculum” at Stratford would have been comparable to Witton, Eaton, or other elite schools. The “standardized curriculum” is a myth.

What we've got here is you assuming you know what I think; then you make assumptions of your own based on what you think 'Shaksper' and his parents should have thought and done; then I come up with a few assumptions of my own to place against your assumptions; and you come back again to accuse me of. . . making assumptions!

Dear Lord. This could be a long thread.

In the course of his book, Honan speculates all the time - based on the few known facts. All biographies of Shakespeare necessarily do this. He's assuming - we are using that word a lot, aren't we? - a certain level of sophistication and maturity in the reader, such that he doesn't have to preface every single thing he says with something like, 'of course, this is speculation because we don't have any hard evidence of what Shakespeare was doing at this point in time'. That would make for a rather tedious read, wouldn't it? But Oxfordians squealing that he and other biographers are somehow trying to deceive them are, frankly, tiresome. (In response to this line of 'argument' I started going through Mark Anderson's Shakespeare By Another Name underlining every instance of 'could have', 'would have', 'should have', 'may have', 'one suspects', 'probably', etc, but soon got bored. Every page is peppered with them.)

Tom,

I don't mean to be unfriendly on this, but I cannot agree to your logic. There are, first of all, the fundamental assumptions that are critical to the Stratfordian argument (attended the grammar school; school was excellent and provided all that was needed; planned to become an actor; planned to become an author; his parents supported those plans; his teachers supported or condoned those plans; etc.) These are all assumptions. Call them theories, call them generally accepted biograpy or whatever. None of these assumptions are seriously examined in Stratfordian literature. If I'm mistaken on that please advise me. I've presented arguments that counter those assumptions. If I say it is probable that Shaksper's parents would not have supported their son's ostensible desires to be an actor, that is not an "assumption". That is a postulation, something to consider, that, so far as I have found, Stratfordian biographers have not considered. Should one who means to sort out the truth simply ignore such concerns? Is it truly enough to dismiss all conflicting concerns and arguments with the argument that you have the assumption that works for you, and to characterize all counter arguments as "assumptions". I think a true historian would make it a point to thoroughy explore all relevant concerns before plopping down an unproven opinion (assumption) as fact.

Again, here is how Honan prefaces his book:

“This book differs from those biographies which imagine for him political roles, sexual relationship, or colourful intrigues no in the factual record. Imaginative reconstructions and elaborate psychological theories about him can be amusing; but, for me, they strain credulity.”

Differs???? In the passage I quote you, Honan serves up no less than nines pieces of speculation all presented as fact without a word of qualification. Here’s a summary:

(1) That Shaksper went to London “in his early twenties” [there is no evidence of his presence in London before his 30th year].
(2) That he went to London “trained in elocution” [there is simply no supporting evidence].
(3) That he went to London “practiced as a singer or musician” [there is no supporting biographical evidence and no supporting social-contextual evidence].
(4) That he went to London having “imagined” he had opportunities in “the theater” [again, there is no supporting evidence].
(5) That he went to London having “imagined” he had opportunities for patronage [again, no supporting evidence].
(6) That the writings of a twenty-year-old Stratford merchant’s son could have had a “courtly tenor” [absolutely unsupportable].
(7) That he “began as a ‘hireling’ to other actors” [based on a ‘tradition’ which has been largely rejected].
(8) That he gained experience as an “actor and theater poet” [no supporting evidence].
(9) That he, “he bursts into flower as a poet with astonishing suddenness”. [presumably based on the generally accepted interpretation of the Groats-worth and Chettle’s Kinde Heartes Dream]

If a reader were “sophisticated” enough to know that Honan is handing us speculation on these nine points, the reader would be wasting his time reading Honan’s book. The book should carry a warning label for the ‘unsophisticated reader’, but of course that label would be contradicted by Honan’s claim in the introduction which assures us (in so many words) that he’s only giving us the facts. I quote again:

“Imaginative reconstructions and elaborate psychological theories about him can be amusing; but, for me, they strain credulity.”

Having ruled out “imaginative reconstructions” and “elaborate psychological theories” Honan later presents the read with this (for example):

“William’s confidence cannot be dissociated from the emotional support he must have found at home. As a man he would lack a quirky egotism, as seems clear from his relatively peaceful career in the theater, a hive of tension . . . He has a calm, fine control of emotive materials, and his Sonnets, in the artfulness of their structures, reveal a lordly, easy play over feelings. In early life he must have been the focus of Mary’s very urgently watchful, intense love.”

I grant you, there is an accepted ‘manner of speaking’ in biography where the reader is presumed to understand that the biographer is embellishing the factual record. The problem is that Stratfordian biographies are seldom less that 98% embellishment, building on a core of foundational assumptions. Irving Stone’s The Agony and the Ecstasy was far more factual, and he called his book a “biographical novel”.

Anderson may have bored you. At least he was honest.

Glad to hear it. Neither do I.



The only things that are actually critical to the 'Stratfordian argument' are all those pieces of hard evidence that I'm sure you're familiar with - names on title pages, the monument, the First Folio - that in turn connect nicely with the fact of a man with the right name being an actor in the company that performed these plays at the right time. Take away those things and there wouldn't be an argument. Casting doubt on the possible quality of the Stratford Grammar School does nothing, despite what you seem to think, to defeat the Stratfordian 'case'.



Yes, I think he probably did. You'd like to suggest he may not have. Go ahead, knock yourself out. You can't prove it one way or another.



It could have been excellent. Or it may not have been. You can't be certain, either way.



What do you mean by all that was needed? A basic education that he could later build on? That would have done it, yes. Or he may have received a really superb tutoring from one or more of the teachers at the time. We can't know for certain.



Since when was 'planning to become an actor' an important part of the argument? He may never have planned it, just fallen into it at some point. (No offence, but I often get the impression when debating with Oxfordians that some of them just don't understand ordinary life. Does it really have to be spelled out to you that people don't always plan everything they do? Or that what you think the man from Stratford was thinking at any given moment could be a million miles away from the truth?)



Well, at some point it must have occurred to him that he'd be good at this and that it may have been something he wanted to pursue. But as to when he took this up - or 'planned' it - who knows?



They may have supported those 'plans', if he ever planned it, and if he ever told them about it. Or they may not have done.



What difference does it make to anyone's 'case' whether they did or didn't? What about them being completely unaware of any such 'plans'?



What do you mean by 'seriously examining' them? As I've been desperately trying to make clear, any such examination is necessarily speculation.



Do you really think that is what you are doing when you speculate about the possible attitudes of his parents or teachers?



I've considered your 'postulation' and 'postulated' myself in return. Where does that get us? Are you going to prove that my 'postulations' are wrong? How will you do that?



Why is it that what you say is an 'argument' while my counters to these arguments are 'assumptions'? Your 'arguments' are merely possibilities, and all that is needed to counter them are some other possibilities. Do you not see that?



But I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that we don't know. Or are you arguing with what you think Park Honan does, rather than arguing with me?

That's not actually what I said. I said that I became bored as I went through the book underlining all the pure speculation. Because there was so much of it.

As it happens, I did find his book rather dull. But that's another matter.



What do you mean? He does exactly the same as Honan. How can you castigate Honan for it, yet call Anderson 'honest'?

Perhaps I misread you. I disagree that Anderson approaches Honan's degree of speculation presented as fact.

Tom,

You say, “The only things that are actually critical to the 'Stratfordian argument' are all those pieces of hard evidence that I'm sure you're familiar with - names on title pages, the monument, the First Folio…”

But you take the time to defend the other supporting arguments which are, as I said, foundational assumptions, without which there is barely a “case” (a “legal case” if I may), and certainly no "biography". I’m just saying it makes no sense to dismiss what you yourself are arguing. How is it (dialectically) objectionable for me to ‘cast doubt’ upon an unfounded claim (Baldwin) that the grammar school would have been excellent? How does pointing to the ‘legal case’ refute my criticism or arguments about the grammar school?

You said, “Yes, I think he probably did [attend the grammar school]. You'd like to suggest he may not have. Go ahead, knock yourself out. You can't prove it one way or another.”

Is your proof that he did superior to my arguments that he may not? What proof do you have? I’m simply challenging the assumption/contention that he did.

You said, “It could have been excellent. Or it may not have been. You can't be certain, either way.”

Really? Baldwin and Pistol seem quite certain.

You said, “What do you mean by all that was needed? A basic education that he could later build on? That would have done it, yes. Or he may have received a really superb tutoring from one or more of the teachers at the time. We can't know for certain.”

What I “mean” is speaking to Baldwin’s very specific claim, “At least, no miracles are required to account for such knowledge and techniques from the classics as he [Shake-speare] exhibits . . . [the] Stratford grammar school will furnish all that is required.” Yes, there is very little we can “know for certain”. But, if one has studied Baldwin etc. one will know that your suggestion that Will Shaksper got “superb tutoring” is at the other end from “certain”. It is highly improbable in a class with some 50 students and 7-8 grades where the teaching methodology was not in any way geared to individual instruction.

You said, “Since when was 'planning to become an actor' an important part of the argument?”

Well, Honan apparently thought it was. Other Stratfordian biographers seem to have thought so as well.

You said, “He may never have planned it, just fallen into it at some point.”

Okay. Let’s say he didn’t plan it.

You said, “(No offence, but I often get the impression when debating with Oxfordians that some of them just don't understand ordinary life. Does it really have to be spelled out to you that people don't always plan everything they do? Or that what you think the man from Stratford was thinking at any given moment could be a million miles away from the truth?)”

Again, okay. Let's dismiss all those arguments we read about how he was inspired by traveling players? Really, your arguing with Stratfordians on this point.

You said, “Well, at some point it must have occurred to him that he'd be good at this and that it may have been something he wanted to pursue. But as to when he took this up - or 'planned' it - who knows?

I’m saying Shakespeare’s exceptional erudition and ability as a writer required exceptional commitment and motivation from the outset. See Simonton, among others. So, at “what point” do you think it would have been early enough for him to get really serious about his studied? What was the motivation? Did he see a market out there for authors? Historically speaking, there was no market at the time Shaksper was supposedly getting all that was “required” at the grammar school. Do you think his schoolmasters would have encouraged him to be a writer? The grammar school prepared students for established professions. Writing was not a “profession”.

You said, “They [his parents] may have supported those 'plans', if he ever planned it, and if he ever told them about it. Or they may not have done.”

Why on earth would he have “planned” to be an author, in a non-existent profession?

You said, “What difference does it make to anyone's 'case' whether they did or didn't? What about them being completely unaware of any such 'plans'?”

See my previous response. There is simply no contextual plausibility to him planning to be an author.

You said, “What do you mean by 'seriously examining' them? As I've been desperately trying to make clear, any such examination is necessarily speculation.”

Critical examination of arguments and assumptions is “speculation”? That’s a bit Orwellian.

You said, “Do you really think that is what you are doing when you speculate about the possible attitudes of his parents or teachers?”

Is it speculation to attempt to understand the personal/social context and how that would have affected what was going on?

You said, “I've considered your 'postulation' and 'postulated' myself in return. Where does that get us? Are you going to prove that my 'postulations' are wrong? How will you do that?"

Frankly, you’ve not responded in any serious way the arguments I’ve provided.

You said, “Why is it that what you say is an 'argument' while my counters to these arguments are 'assumptions'? Your 'arguments' are merely possibilities, and all that is needed to counter them are some other possibilities. Do you not see that?”

This is very circular. I’m saying the foundation assumptions of the Stratfordian biography should be analyzed on the basis of his circumstances and social context, and that that kind of analysis has not been undertaken by Stratfordians. The reason it hasn’t is (in my opinion) that they know it would present them all sorts of problems.

You said, "But I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that we don't know. Or are you arguing with what you think Park Honan does, rather than arguing with me?"

In truth I thought I was arguing with both you and Honan. Pardon me if I mistook you for a spokesman of the party-line.
And pardon me if there are more typos than usual. I’m in a rush.

Only if one used the type of logic favoured by anti-Stratfordians.



No, he does not. I have noticed a curious difficulty that you have with reading comprehension. It is by no means unique to yourself, but I find that you have a stronger case of it than most. I suspect it's related somehow with your use of bad grammar and careless punctuation and spelling.



As usual, what you think it means has nothing to do with Fripp's point.



I'll just cut to the chase; this interaction becomes tiresome and I have to go tend to other business.

Fripp is saying that Brownsword most likely duplicated the grammar school education that he received at Witton while Bretchgirdle was headmaster there. Fripp gives a cite to the previous volume in the series that treats Bretchgirdle's biography and includes his career as Witton schoolmaster.

And I disagree with your disagreement. You're nitpicking. Anderson does exactly what you claim Honan does, inventing an entire interior life for DeVere, often based on his interpretation of plays - typically Hamlet, of course - that Anderson believes DeVere wrote. At one point he even invents a hypothetical journey to Ragusa/Dubrovnik/Illyria for him so he can speculate about Twelfth Night.

If you object so strongly to Honan, you should object just as much to Anderson. Biased at all?

You may keep saying they're 'foundational assumptions' but that doesn't make it so. I've already told you what the foundations of the Stratfordian 'case' are. I really don't want to have to keep repeating myself.



What I'm doing is pointing out that your 'case' against his schooling is peripheral to whether he wrote the works or not; and that in the absence of hard evidence, your 'case' rests on no more than assumptions and possibilities.



I never said it was objectionable. Cast as much doubt as you can on it. I can counter your doubts by raising other possibilities that are equally plausible.



It doesn't 'refute' anything. I didn't say it did.



I don't have a 'proof' that he did. Why don't you try actually reading what I wrote?



I'm simply challenging your assumption/contention that he didn't.



What's that got to do with what I said?



What is it about my offering suggestions and possibilities that you can't understand? OK, let's assume that he received only an average education instead, which was what I first said. So what?



No, let's say he may have. Or he may not have. Why are you so keen to introduce certainty when we simply cannot be certain?



Why dismiss them? I certainly didn't say we should dismiss them. For the nth time, I am offering possibilities because we have no certainties. Why do you have such a problem with that?



Bully for you. I disagree.


What would be the point of me speculating? OK then, I think he got really serious at 12. Or maybe 15 - no, maybe it was 14. Or 17. Or 21. Who knows?



Maybe.



No idea. It doesn't matter.



But having received enough in the way of a basic education, he may have decided some time later to be a writer. What's your problem with this? Your wholly subjective idea that he 'must' have decided early in his life to be a writer? Your wholly subjective idea that if he hadn't been groomed to be a writer from the earliest age, he couldn't possibly have been one?



Er, yes. Quite. Who brought up the idea of him 'planning' to be an author again? I'm sure it wasn't me.



We really are talking at cross-purposes, aren't we? Orwellian? No, sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.



Yes, when I can give you a totally different interpretation based on the same meagre facts. Your idea of the meaning of 'speculation' seems to be different to mine.



Then our conversation seems to be at an end. I've merely done exactly what you've been doing - suggesting possibilities.



Well it hasn't presented me with any. Seriously. You've not been able to put one single case to me that I haven't been able to answer - even though you seem to think my answers aren't 'serious'. So I doubt your 'analysis' would present any problems at all to the majority of 'Stratfordians'.



You did mistake me for a 'spokesman of the party line'. I'm not a member of any 'party', even if lots of Oxfordians seem to assume that anyone arguing the Stratfordian case has themselves to be part of some giant conspiracy to silence you true believers. So please don't try and patronise me.

Tom,

I will forego rejoinder on the put-downs that mark your style and, with the hope that you find the time (and the courage) to return, I will address this to you, doing my best to clear away your obfuscation.

Previously I said, “The founder of Witton was Sir John Dean, and Witton was a school of a higher class than Stratford. The “instruction” that Fripp quotes is from Witton, not Stratford. But, Fripp says the “instruction” was “to Smart by the corporation”.

To this you responded, “No, he does not.”

Later you say, “Fripp is saying that Brownsword most likely duplicated the grammar school education that he received at Witton while Bretchgirdle was headmaster there. Fripp gives a cite to the previous volume in the series that treats Bretchgirdle's biography and includes his career as Witton schoolmaster.”

I have read the page over and over and I cannot find anything like what you said.

Fripp said: “The instruction to Smart by the Stratford corporation in 1554 permitted an easier examination. The founder of Witten laid it down in 1557, ‘I will the children learn…’”

The quotation in that sentence is, presumably, the “instruction”. Noting that the quotation is separated from the prefacing part of the sentence by a comma, with noting in between, one will, by conventional rules of grammar, take “The founder” to be the author of the quotation. If this is not intended, the mention of “The founder” is inexplicably out of place and misleading. Thus it seems to be clear that the quotation (instruction) was written by the ‘founder of Witton’ who was Sir John Dean who has no known connection with the Stratford grammar school. Seeking to unravel your interpretation we go to the end of the quotation (instruction) and the follow-on sentence which says:

“This is the curriculum through which Master John Bretchgirdle took his pupil John Brownsword”.

I quote you again, “Fripp is saying that Brownsword most likely duplicated the grammar school education that he received at Witton while Bretchgirdle was headmaster there. Fripp gives a cite to the previous volume in the series that treats Bretchgirdle's biography and includes his career as Witton schoolmaster.”

I can’t for the life of me see how Fripp says this. Fripp said,

“The instruction to Smart by the Stratford corporation in 1554 permitted an easier examination.”

With our eye fixed firmly on 1554 as the date of the “instruction”, we note that: 1) Bretchgirdle was never the founder of Witton; 2) Bretchgirdle came to Stratford in 1561 as Vicar, seven years after the chartering of the school (actually the re-chartering). 3) Bretchgirdle was never directly associated with Stratford grammar school; 4) Brownsword came to Stratford grammar school as schoolmaster in 1565, eleven years after the chartering of 1554, and eleven years after the date Fripp give us for the “instructions”. Here, one more time is the relevant text from Fripp:

“The instruction to Smart by the Stratford corporation in 1554 permitted an easier examination. The founder of Witten laid it down in 1557, ‘I will the children learn . . .’ This is the curriculum through which Master John Bretchgirdle took his pupil John Brownsword. At Shrewsbury it was prescribed, ‘There shall be read for prose…”

The point of mentioning Shrewsbury, with the instruction quoted, is, presumably, to reinforce the argument for the “instruction” quoted above, from Witton, which, if the “instruction” above did apply to Stratford, would be superfluous. Here again is your statement:

“Fripp is saying that Brownsword most likely duplicated the grammar school education that he received at Witton while Bretchgirdle was headmaster there.”

Considering that Fripp refers us to an “instruction” from 1554, that Brownsword didn’t arrive in Stratford until 1565, and that Fripp says absolutely nothing about Brownsword ‘duplicating’ anything, the question (truly the central question) is whether the “instruction” quoted by Fripp was an instruction for the Stratford grammar school. If it was, why did Fripp quote the Witton instruction and not the Stratford instruction? Where is the “Stratford instruction”, the one with the “curriculum? Has anyone seen it?

To Stonecastle: To deal with Stratfordians you have to understand their "musta factor". They believe the Stratford man was Shakespeare. Therefore he "musta" had a great education... so the Stratford school "musta" had great teachers and a rigorous curriculum.

It takes very little if any courage (good thing you're foregoing any rejoinders on the put-downs that mark my style) to repeat what is becoming increasing apparent to those responding to your posts: you have a problem with reading comprehension, to be specific you read what you want to be there, not what is actually on the screen or the page.

I suggest you back up to the beginning of that paragraph on the previous page, of which the first sentence states, "We have not the statutes of the Stratford school, but they were probably much the same as elsewhere." We usually call that a topic sentence, since everything that follows in the same paragraph relates to it.

So, it has been amply demonstrated that the existence of Petty Schools is noted in a number of Orthodox biographies (I shouldn't have speculated otherwise - that was too quick).

But, I thought it was worth pointing out something about the quote from Bate:

Soul of the Age, pg. 74:
"Before being admitted to big school, there was "petit" or "petty" school, where boys learned to read and were drilled in the catechism of the established church. Then they would proceed to Latin grammar, beginning by learning their entire textbook by heart."

If this were the only biography of Shakespeare that a person had the opportunity to read, it would not be at all surprising if he or she carried away the impression that Petty School was almost like attending the First through Third Grades at a school here in the States - that it was part of a process and that it lead inevitably to learning Latin Grammar.

I'm NOT saying that Stratfordian writers are being sneaky or intentionally omitting otherwise crucial information in a quote such as Bate's. It's clear that the real issue is that they consider the Grammar School experience to be the real story - Petty School is viewed as a necessary stepping stone, to be noted in passing.

But, again, if Bate's was the sole "biography" that someone read, I would almost expect that that person, when reading about the controversy over Shakespeare's poor signatures, to believe that the fact that Shaksper could even sign his name meant that he had the full Grammar School experience - "School" started in a "small" format, then inevitably progressed to the "big" or full-blown experience. All or nothing - if you could write in English, you had had the full course.

The truth is that Petty Schools were separately conducted, that attendance there did NOT inevitably lead to Grammar School, and that penmanship itself was (usually) taught not by the Ushers of the Grammar School, but by visiting "Traveling Scriveners" - (who likely also taught students not attending Grammar School) and that wouldn't be understood by the reader of Bate, and likely not by readers of these other books listed here.

So the fact that Shaksper could (arguably) sign his name is NOT evidence that he attended Grammar School.

However the poor quality of his handwriting (if in fact the examples were in fact his) doesn't count as evidence that he couldn't read and write English.

If Shaksper had English instruction at Petty School (and took some penmanship lessons later) it would explain how he could function as a (probably minor) actor in a fast-paced setting where it would be damnably inconvenient to deal with someone who couldn't read a script, and would explain the poor signatures.

So, here's the more important issue that I intended to bring to the fore with the focus on Petty Schools: is it time for Oxfordians to admit the possibility that Shaksper could read and write English - that he possibly attended Petty School? That the word "illiterate" is too definite when applied to him - that it makes more sense to admit the probability that he could be of better use to the heavyweight actors in the company by reading scripts and other notes? That he would have been far more valuable as a "front" if he could read - especially in the light of the knowledge that basic reading skills were possessed by many who only attended Petty School?

Tom,

Look at the heading of this discussion.

I wouldn’t want you to have to keep repeating yourself. I’d really like you to simply face reality. I think we agree that the FF dedication linking to Shaksper is a fact. Would you characterize his grammar school attendance as a fact?

You said, “What I'm doing is pointing out that your 'case' against his schooling is peripheral to whether he wrote the works or not; and that in the absence of hard evidence, your 'case' rests on no more than assumptions and possibilities.”

If the conjecture about his grammar school attendance is “peripheral”, why is it boilerplate material in his bio? If the basic facts (FF, monument, the will, name on title pages) are all the evidence you require, and you’re not bothered by any of the contradicting evidence, that’s your decision. You argument, in that case, is crystal clear and needs no more than a paragraph. Why do you bother to discuss beyond that point?

You said, “I never said it was objectionable. Cast as much doubt as you can on it. I can counter your doubts by raising other possibilities that are equally plausible.”

That does seem to be your strategy. Unfortunately you show no interest in seriously considering what is “plausible”.

I said, “How does pointing to the ‘legal case’ refute my criticism or arguments about the grammar school?”

You responded, “It doesn't 'refute' anything. I didn't say it did.”

Then what was the point of bringing it up?

I said, “Is your proof that he did superior to my arguments that he may not? What proof do you have?”

You responded, “I don't have a 'proof' that he did. Why don't you try actually reading what I wrote?

Pardon me for thinking you have any interest in anything beyond the ‘legal case’.

You said, “I'm simply challenging your assumption/contention that he didn't.”

No you’re not. You’re just blowing them off.

You said, “It could have been excellent. Or it may not have been. You can't be certain, either way.”

I responded, “Really? Baldwin and Pistol seem quite certain.”

And you responded, “What's that got to do with what I said?”

You say the quality of education doesn’t matter. Baldwin and practically every Stratfordian after him (except you) makes a really big deal about the supposed fact that it would have been “excellent”. By the way, you object to be lumped in with Stratfordians in general but you lump all Oxfordians together.

You said, “What is it about my offering suggestions and possibilities that you can't understand? OK, let's assume that he received only an average education instead, which was what I first said. So what?”

There’s nothing at all wrong with offering suggestions and possibilities. The point is they should be critically considered within the social-historical context and scientific knowledge.

You said, regarding grammar school attendance, “No, let's say he may have. Or he may not have. Why are you so keen to introduce certainty when we simply cannot be certain?”

I am amazed at your credulity.

You said, regarding the theory about the travelling players, “Why dismiss them? I certainly didn't say we should dismiss them. For the nth time, I am offering possibilities because we have no certainties. Why do you have such a problem with that?"

The problem I have with your general argument here is that you reject serious consideration of all those “possibilities”. Take a deep breath. Stratfordian biographers say that he would have attended the Stratford grammar school. They use words such as “we need not doubt that he would have”. Is there any evidence that this is so? More to the point, is there any evidence that Stratfordians have ever seriously considered both sides of that argument? If you pose an assumption or theory and expect everyone to accept it you need to do your homework, get all the relevant evidence and information and study it objectively. I know of no Stratfordian biography that does this. They all just say he would have attended the grammar school.

I said, “I’m saying Shakespeare’s exceptional erudition and ability as a writer required exceptional commitment and motivation from the outset.”

You responded, “Bully for you. I disagree.”

Disagreement is not an argument.

You said, “What would be the point of me speculating? OK then, I think he got really serious at 12. Or maybe 15 - no, maybe it was 14. Or 17. Or 21. Who knows?”

What’s the point of you speculating? The point is to try to understand, to bring the facts into compliance with the circumstances, to explain the contradictions. This, presumably, is what his biographers have tried to do. Apparently all that is unimportant to you.

I said, “Did he see a market out there for authors?”

You responded, “Maybe.”

The difference between you and me is that I’ve attempted to understand the historical context (I emphasize “attempted”). Unless you count those who lived from patronage and worked day jobs, there were no professional authors in England at that time. Most worked as private tutors or as secretaries (Spenser and Lyly).

I said, “Historically speaking, there was no market at the time Shaksper was supposedly getting all that was “required” at the grammar school. Do you think his schoolmasters would have encouraged him to be a writer?”

You responded, “No idea. It doesn't matter.”

Doesn’t matter? That is precisely my argument; that Stratfordians don’t want to seriously bother with historical context.

You said, “But having received enough in the way of a basic education, he may have decided some time later to be a writer. What's your problem with this? Your wholly subjective idea that he 'must' have decided early in his life to be a writer? Your wholly subjective idea that if he hadn't been groomed to be a writer from the earliest age, he couldn't possibly have been one?”

Yes. That’s correct. And you have made it quite clear that you are not interested in the problems of creative development and genius. You are free to embrace all the “possibilities” without ever considering them in the light of historical context and science.

I’m going to skip most of the rest. The conversation is not “at an end”. Sadly, it never began.