"John Cartmell"
news:4f7ee3c123john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
>> "Tom Reedy"
>> news:6d850cb4-dfb2-4951-b169-df2d72464ac1@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > No, that's not true. Almost every biography I've read mentions the
>> > probable illiteracy of his parents, while citing the lack of any firm
>> > evidence one way or the other about his siblings and children.
>
>> That alone should be more than enough for any rational person to disbelieve
>> the Stratfordian story.
>
> Except that Shakespeare had free access to grammar school education
A one-teacher-in-one-room school in a
remote provincial town where the teachers
were usually fresh out of college, not lasting
long. (There were many changes over the
years the Stratman might have attended
school: 1571-77.) Such schools catered
for 7-13 year olds, and would have taught
little beyond basic literacy. Ever met a
thirteen-year old? And in a town where
most were illiterate?
> and we
> know the level of tuition in that school from work produced by a close friend.
There is no extant schoolwork produced
by any 'friend'. A few of the families in the
town were literate, and would have sent
their children to school. The Shagspers
were not of that class or nature.
> And the minor quibble that there isn't the slightest evidence that his parents
> were illiterate.
There is plenty of evidence. The father
was active in business and town affairs,
and always 'signed' with a mark. In
any case, both of the Stratman's daughters
were illiterate (proving his own illiteracy).
Judith, 'signed' with a mark legal documents,
witnessed properly by her in-laws. The
illiteracy of his elder daughter, Susanna, is
clear from several sources, including her
'signature' -- drawn carefully, but all wrong.
See: http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
The notion that the Stratman was the
Bard is about as credible as the existence
of the Tooth Fairy. Both are beliefs
appropriate only to children and the
simple-minded.
Paul.