I suggest you cut back on the caffeine.

You're still "on track".

It may be that change to "royal decree" was made earlier, but still sometime after 3 February. I'm still looking for the edit. The point remains the same.

If I'm not mistake the change to "royal decree" was made on 6 February. So, pardon me, it wasn't "yesterday". Any case, when Pistol asked, "Where do you get this "dictated by law" stuff?", he knew quite well where I got it. He appears to be the one that changed it from "dictated by law" to "royal decree", a little more than a month ago.

I hope they are; evidently you aren't.



You really aren't that bright when it comes to reading, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&diff=475432586&oldid=475119821

Here's the edit from yesterday, which I made after I said you had a point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&diff=482766914&oldid=482499765

Don't you ever get tired of being proved wrong while you arrogantly posture and make an ass out of yourself? You don't even know that you're doing it, do you?

You need to take the advice of David Crockett: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."

Tom, Tom, Tom,

It’s always such a pleasure. Of course you expect everyone to focus on an error of date (that I corrected) and to no longer be concerned with your errors on the substance of the question. Here is where you are proven wrong:

Tom wrong: That there Elizabethan grammar school was “dictated by law” or “standardized by royal decree”. The wording means the same and it is historically false either what you word it. I’m curious. Why did you change the wording?

Tom wrong: In our February discussion at Wikipedia I informed you that neither of the sources that were cited (Baldwin and Cressy) supported the claim “dictated by law”. This, at length, you finally understood, and I’ve no doubt it was a great shock to you. Clearly you’ve still not recovered from it. Did you think the change of wording would solve that problem? It didn't!

Tom wrong: In February, after considerable discussion about the royal injunctions actually said, noting that they clearly don’t prescribe classical Latin literary texts, you grudgingly agreed to insert the word “grammar” before the word “curriculum”. We both know that the illusion of a standardized “curriculum” was still there. I managed to get the wording a little closer to the truth.

Tom wrong: Handing us Fripp, as though he could verify the existence of a "curriculum".

Tom wrong: (actually, Tom being tricky) Thinking that everyone would believe I'd dredged up Wikipedia wording from April last year, when the wording was still in place as of 6 February this year.

Again, I’ll leave the name-calling to you. Do you have a medal for that at Wikipedia?

Important update on Pistol’s question: “Where do you get this "dictated by law" stuff?”

The real question should be: where did Tom Reedy get this “dictated by law stuff”? It turns out that it originated with him. See Tom Reedy’s edit on 05:00, 15 July 2007, where he inserted, “by royal edict the curriculum was standardized across the nation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&diff=prev&oldid=144738051

No matter how you play with the wording, you won’t find that in either of his sources (Baldwin and Cressy). Neither claim that there was a “curriculum” standardized by “law” or “edict” or “unjunction” or anything of that sort. So, it turns out that the “source” for that “dictated by law stuff” was none other than Tom Reedy.

Word of advice Tom: you need to change the citation to “Reedy”. Are you a "reliable source"?

In Tom's defense, his misreading of Baldwin and Cressy is not unusual for a Stratfordian.

The personal attacks need to stop, folks. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

I'd say the real question is, where did Shaksper find the books (in Latin) to read? In Burghley's library? The corner bookstore? The public library? The Internet?

Perhaps he borrowed them at the back door of Burghley House - like a cup of sugar.

The Oxfordians should "ram home" the "Beowulf" thing---only two copies existed, and Oxford read one of them. As I bestly remember.

Hwaet?!
Exactly. From *Beowulf* to Shakespeare in your basic *Norton Anthology of English Literature* or any other, the collection is an Oxfordian teleology. Through his tutor, Oxford knew *Beowulf*. The de Veres owned and probably commissioned the Ellesmere manuscript of Chaucer's *Canterbury Tales* (the glorious early one with the marginal illuminations of the pilgrims). *Sir Gawain and the Green Knight* has an earlier de Vere generation connection. The first glimmer of an English Renaissance comes with the Italianate sonnets of Wyatt and Surrey, the latter being our Earl's uncle. The early Elizabethan anthologies such as *A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres* call for a Chaucer-inspired home-grown tradition of English literature. Oxford soon simply did it all himself: the English Renaissance. Truly.

As I bestly remember there was only one copy in England and Edward's tutor wrote his name in it.

Said copy resided at Burghley House.

The trouble I've had ramming that one home was that the Stratfordian had never heard Beowulf was a source text for Hamlet and then explained it away by saying the folk tale was well known in England before it was ever written down.

Is there a facepalm smilie in the house?