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.

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.

I'm happy to know that you have the paleographic expertise to make such judgements. If we could impose on your knowledge, perhaps you could enlighten us on the probably literacy (or lack thereof) and educational attainments of the two signatories here: http://imgur.com/EeYVt

“Henceforth, this by royal command was to be the only Latin grammar used in grammar school. . . . There could be but one "bestnesse," and that having been determined was to be prescribed by authority. . . . The curriculum has now come to essential uniformity. [etc.]”

From the above, Stratfordian have construed (misread),as we see in the Wikipedia article,that a full “curriculum”, including classical literary texts such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses, was “dictated by law”. There are no classical literary texts mentioned in the “law” (at least as quoted by Baldwin). Were there such a specification in the law, we may be sure Baldwin would have quoted it. What the king dictated was “grammar”, not, in any meaningful sense, a “curriculum”. How, considering the lack of any mention in the “law” about specific literary texts, did Baldwin arrive at the conclusion that, “The curriculum has now come to essential uniformity”? That’s a longer story, and one might want to contemplate what Baldwin meant by "now", but it is clear that the “uniformity” of "curriculum" was not “dictated by law”.

For the Wikipedia article to be factually correct, the word “curriculum” would have to be removed from the sentence quoted previously, and numerous related statements drawing from that misreading would need to be corrected as well.

They're rather splendid – haven't come across them before. They wouldn't be the signatures of Stratford's very own Vicar Bracegirdle and schoolmaster Brownsword, would they?

I agree with Pistol in encouraging everyone to read the “whole chapter” from Baldwin. In fact, I encourage everyone to read the entire volume.

I promise to get the quote boxes worked out, but I’m going to do this this way one more time.

From the Royal Injunction, “Henceforth, this by royal command was to be the only Latin grammar used in grammar school. . . . There could be but one "bestnesse," and that having been determined was to be prescribed by authority. . . . The curriculum has now come to essential uniformity. [etc.]”
And Pistol says: “So exactly what part of that do you not understand?”

What I “do not understand” is where you (Pistol) are finding the “curriculum dictated by law”, or where you see Baldwin making such a claim. Baldwin’s claim of “essential uniformity” does not trace back syntacticatlly to a legal dictate for “curriculum”, no doubt because Baldwin understood there was no such ‘dictate’.

Pistol says, “From the Wikipedia article:

Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the grammar curriculum was standardized by royal decree throughout England,[13] and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics.[14]

[14] is cited to Baldwin, p. 117: “Thus the grammar school provided an intensive and detailed literary training based upon the best Latin authors.” “

If there is wording in a “royal decree” to support the claim of a “curriculum” thereby dictated, except in the very limited sense of a few texts from grammatical or religious instruction, someone should quote those words. Beyond Baldwin’s inference that common grammar school curriculum could be extrapolated from Shakespeare’s knowledge of classical texts (the subject of Baldwin’s second volume), and by relying on lists of suggested texts (more suggested than curriculum) from elite schools such as Eaton, there is no factual basis to support the claim of the Wikipedia article, “the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics”. Latin grammar, yes! The “classics”, no. The Wikipedia statement does accurately reflect Baldwin’s claim, but it is not sustainable based on the historical evidence.

Where do you get this "dictated by law" stuff?

"Classics" does not refer to Little Women and 1960s rock and roll. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics

You have a point in that the curriculum did not encompass Greek authors.

"Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England,[13] and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare (as of 24 April 2011)

The current language sustains the mistaken interpretation of the factual record. There was no "standardization" of curriculum.



Very funny! The issue is classical literary texts, in Latin, per Baldwin's claim, as partially listed by Fripp per the link you provided. If you like I will provide Baldwin's list of classical texts that he falsely claims made up the "standarized" or "essentially uniform" curriculum.

They are both clearer than any of Shaksper's. Since you asked.

I wrote the following before I saw Pistol's comments. Still somewhat relevant (disgrard where not).

Comming back to the Brownsword "signatures", they are interesting. Sincerely, without any motive one way or the other, a couple of questions: Is the squiggle before the name "by me" or "for me"? Do we have dates (I didn't see any)? Where these late in Brownswords life, or was he still in good health. If it is his handwriting, it is worse than mine (and that's really bad).

Could you point out the specific differences between those two and these (except for Nos. 4 and 5, when he was obviously weak from the illness that eventually killed him)?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Shakespeare_sigs_collected.png

If you were at all paying attention to my posts, you would know that I'm arguing that Shaksper probably learned English in Petty School - that he was, therefore, NOT "illiterate".

Where do you get this "dictated by law" stuff?

"Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England,[13] and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare (as of 24 April 2011)

Uh, have you looked at a calendar lately?

If you can prove Baldwin and all the other historians wrong, why are you wasting your time writing Kindle books for the crank trade?