Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RunDNA t1_j9ojbi0 wrote

More info from the Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900:

> CROFTS or CROFT, ELIZABETH (fl. 1554), was the chief actor in an eccentric imposture, contrived early in 1554, on the part of the protestants to excite an open demonstration in London against the projected marriage of Queen Mary with Philip of Spain.

> The girl, who was only about eighteen years old, appears to have concealed herself within a wide crevice in the thick wall of a house in Aldersgate Street. The wall faced the street, and by means of a whistle or trumpet her voice assumed so strange a sound as to arrest the attention of all passers-by. Large crowds constantly assembled, and confederates scattered among the people interpreted her words as divinely inspired denunciations of King Philip, Queen Mary, and the Roman catholic religion.

> The device deceived the Londoners for many months, and the mysterious voice was variously named "the white bird," "the byrde that spoke in the wall," and "the spirit in the wall."

> Before July 1554 the imposture was discovered; Elizabeth was sent to Newgate and afterwards to a prison in Bread Street, and there confessed the truth. She said that one Drake, Sir Anthony Knyvett's servant, had given her the whistle, and that her confederates included a player, a weaver of Redcross Street, and a clergyman...

> On Sunday 15 July she was set upon a scaffold by St. Paul's Cross while John Wymunsly, archdeacon of Middlesex, read her confession. "After her confession read she kneeled downe and asked God forgivenes and the Queen's Maiestie, desyringe the people to praye for her and to beware of heresies. The sermon done she went to prison agayne in Bred Street. … And after Dr. Scorye resorted to her divers tymes to examin her; and after this she was released" (Wriiothesley, Chronicle, ii. 118).

> On 18 July one of her accomplices stood in the pillory "with a paper and a scripter on his hed." No other proceedings appear to have been taken, although seven persons were said to have taken part in the foolish business.

> The imposture resembles that contrived with more effect twenty-two years earlier by Elizabeth Barton [q. v.], the maid of Kent.

712

DrBBQ t1_j9ozuv8 wrote

What the hell does "resorted to her divers tymes" mean?

352

RunDNA t1_j9p06jp wrote

Went to her many times.

290

The_Ry_Ry t1_j9p5wxn wrote

Correct.

You’ll still see “divers occasions” in many legal documents today.

166

MustacheEmperor t1_j9q6gl1 wrote

Pulling that out next time I need to email legal, thx

55

WolframLeon t1_j9rbrk8 wrote

Divers not diverse?

4

The_Ry_Ry t1_j9rd546 wrote

Yes.

I have used that phrase more times than I can count when recording interviews of witnesses, summarizing investigations, drafting charges, etc.

9

WolframLeon t1_j9s7vrd wrote

That’s interesting! Learning new stuff everyday now to go down the rabbit hole.

5

masterofshadows t1_j9pyxqg wrote

Divers is the root of the word diverse. It basically means various in this context. Tymes is just times. Resorted means they made a choice and chose her.

71

Averander t1_j9q4jv5 wrote

Diverse times, diverse also meaning varied or many. The changes in English language over time are fun to see!

21

big_duo3674 t1_j9r315e wrote

They really did a number on the letter "e" at some point, did it piss off someone important?

Alright that's enough e, I will make it my life's work to ensure you're time at the end of words is finished

9

MrsValentine t1_j9q8fp9 wrote

They didn’t have standardised spelling then so they spelt words however they sounded and literacy was quite poor generally. I think that is diverse times aka a variety of times. To resort to something is to go back to something.

14

kingbovril t1_j9q956a wrote

Resorted to her diverse times. So it’s saying they went to her multiple times

5

Asha108 t1_j9sh3kd wrote

resorted to her diverse times, modernly “visited her often”

2

tyleritis t1_j9ps644 wrote

I think you can get a sense of what people sounded like by how they spelled words

34

spleenboggler t1_j9q487j wrote

Absolutely, considering that what worked as a rhymed couplet then, and doesn't work now, is a key clue in untangling how the pronunciations of words have changed over time.

38

Mnemonics19 t1_j9q7ft3 wrote

Written words and spelling were not standardized until more recently (I don't remember when exactly, but it's definitely post 17th century). I've read texts from the 16-17th centuries that spell the same word differently in the same sentence. (Wrote my undergrad thesis on midwifery in the 17th century and had to read a lot of hand written text along with actual printed texts.)

It's really shocking how quickly you pick up on reading text from history, and how quickly the spellings just become normal to "translate."

26

RobertoSantaClara t1_j9r64av wrote

I believe the whole reason why English spelling these days is "weird" is because we shifted our pronunciation from how it was originally when the words' spelling was standardised, so now we're stuck with outdated spellings suited for an entirely different manner of speaking.

8

AnthillOmbudsman t1_j9q0h1u wrote

> desyringe

wtf is that word? I put it in Google and after forcing it to search for it as spelled I get dozens of examples but no explanation of what it means. I wonder if this is bad OCR or something.

21

phistomefel_smeik t1_j9q5kaj wrote

Language evolves and this text is 500 years old! As a german speaking historian I find it interesting how easy this short passage was to read. Written german texts from that period are way harder to decipher imo. Middle high german honestly feels like a different language or at least a strong dialect. And sometimes you think that something sounds like a modern german word but then it turns out to mean something completely different.

17

rolyfuckingdiscopoly t1_j9r4csn wrote

That’s so interesting! I love things like that. Language is so cool. Also words that look or sound like one you know in your language but aren’t related… I forget the term for them. But like avocat in French not being avocado lol. My Arabic teacher called them “false friends,” and I think it’s fun to try to trace connections to them anyway.

4

drakens6 t1_j9qxgdd wrote

> one Drake, Sir Anthony Knyvett's servent

It was Sir Francis!!!!

5

SeaWitch1031 t1_j9ocskp wrote

Ok that's hilarious.

516

Adiwik t1_j9ofkw4 wrote

Had she been found she probably would have been burned, but it was so worth it

−280

jervoise t1_j9opzis wrote

She was found, and wasn’t burned

338

Adiwik t1_j9pr76d wrote

read syntax, realize you reacted and didn't read. on you.

−209

Dasf1304 t1_j9q0jss wrote

Word what you said better. Stop being a defensive dick

96

FreekFrealy t1_j9osdy8 wrote

How do you think we know about it if she wasn't found?

117

Froakiebloke t1_j9oxwtn wrote

She wasn’t burned, likely because she confessed and recanted; except for than the big names like Archbishop Cranmer, the Marian regime largely only burned people who wouldn’t recant their heresies

56

gaijin5 t1_j9qgdns wrote

You realise England was protestant at this time? Or did not read the article.

Guessing both

Edit: u/lebiro with the real facts. My bad.

16

lebiro t1_j9qzbqz wrote

This was in the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary - her marriage to the Catholic King Philip of Spain was the thing thatwas agitating Croft and her friends. I don't think Mary had actually burned any Protestants yet at the time of this incident (and Croft certainly wasn't burned), but she certainly did so during her reign.

6

gaijin5 t1_j9sklzu wrote

Ah fuck you're right. Thanks for expanding on that!

1

OtisTetraxReigns t1_j9oqhnf wrote

Just as well no one ever found out.

Edit: lol. Don’t think. Just downvote.

−25

LynxJesus t1_j9og63l wrote

High class trolling. We still have much to learn

417

bonesnaps t1_j9pqc8t wrote

Heavenly voice: "It's just a prank bro"

21

TeamWonderful7670 t1_j9tpe73 wrote

Social Experiment In the Wall

Not gone in accordance with the plan!

City Guards called upon!

In the hood.

1

bigbangbilly t1_j9pjvnq wrote

The ones in fairy tales hid under bridges. This one hid in a wall

11

1945BestYear t1_j9okth7 wrote

Englishman: I say to you, goodsir, sometimes speaking to you is as futile as speaking to that wall.

Wall: May the Devil take all papists.

Englishman: ...

353

sid_raj7 t1_j9ptt30 wrote

Englishman: "Crikey me, laddies. Did that wall just utter?"

42

ghengilhar t1_j9sczfb wrote

He real question is: is this 16th century London or 21st century Larkhall?

3

TheCloudFestival t1_j9owbuc wrote

It's genuinely amazing when you begin to realise how completely credulous people in the past were.

I know we're not necessarily much better now, but as time goes on the methods needed to fool people are becoming more and more sophisticated.

When you look at the history of magic, conjuring, spiritualism, etc, you come across thousands of cases in centuries past of people being completely fooled and taken in by the most mundane trickery.

A personal favourite of mine is the 'Floating Bowl of Floating Apples' trick where a conjurer would make a bowl filled with water in which apples were floating appear to levitate and move around the stage. This trick absolutely bamboozled audiences for decades. Conjurers who performed it were accused of actual witchcraft, and even other professional conjurers engaged in the most intense espionage to try and figure out how it was done.

The whole trick was quite literally stage hands dressed in black velvet against a black velvet backdrop in a dimly lit theatre picking up and carrying the bowl around, something that today a five year old would posit as the obvious solution from just a single showing, yet trying to figure the trick out drove people in the C18th and C19th nuts.

Just go and look at old photographs of mediums producing 'ectoplasm'. One glimpse and you'll conclude that the 'ectoplasm' is just gauze covered in some sticky substance that they're pulling from a pocket or underneath their clothes, and yet even Royal Society scientists, doctors, bishops, lawyers, politicians, etc, completely and sincerely believed they witnessed mediums producing genuine ectoplasm.

It kinda gives a whole new perspective to the 'miracles' of the more ancient religions. I don't doubt that ancient peoples genuinely believed someone died and was resurrected simply by being told a living person was in fact dead, and then watching said 'dead' person get up and move around.

Seriously, it's almost sweet how childishly naive people were to the most basic and facile of trickery.

161

Hedgehogknight t1_j9p903s wrote

My exact thought. For months a mysterious voice is speaking to you from behind a wall. Should we check whether a person is hiding behind the wall? Nah, it’s speaking in a strange voice, it cannot possibly be a person.

90

Roman_____Holiday t1_j9q9ip8 wrote

All people are less likely to question something that reinforces their already held beliefs. Doubly so for religious true believers.

30

1945BestYear t1_j9puzzp wrote

As a counterpoint, have you ever seen a Sacha Baron Cohen film? There are a lot of people out there who would take the most ridiculous man they ever met at face value so long as he has a funny accent and says he's from a country they don't know anything about.

42

kahlzun t1_j9ru3qz wrote

I swear the dude has a superpower of convincing people to incriminate themselves

4

[deleted] t1_j9piyps wrote

[deleted]

34

TheCloudFestival t1_j9pkfps wrote

I've always thought of Jesus as an amalgam of several Jesuses walking around and preaching at the time (Jesus being a very common name in those days), who used elements of magic and showmanship to beef up their Post-Apocalyptic Judaism doctrine. Those preachers certainly didn't invent the Post-Apocalyptic Jewish doctrine, but they did enthusiastically spread it. They were more like the flashy megachurch pastors of their day.

18

Spirckle t1_j9qjx2l wrote

> Post-Apocalyptic

It would have been pre-apocalyptic. Or just apocalyptic. People of that time thought that the apocalypse was yet to come. The closest thing they experienced to an apocalypse was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

2

TheCloudFestival t1_j9qmefd wrote

It's just another term for Messianic Judaism. I don't really understand it either, but it's one of the ways of referring to them nonetheless.

−1

Sigg3net t1_j9qtam3 wrote

Jesus wasn't a common name, it's the Roman misspelling/latinized version of Joshua, isn't it?

2

TheCloudFestival t1_j9qyof2 wrote

Yeah, Joshua was a pretty common name back then, what with being an Old Testament patriarch and such.

1

OldKingCanary t1_j9rho4x wrote

There's a lot of hints that he was also inspired by the local Buddhist "missionaries" (not really but kinda cultural ones) that had been sent by King Asoka a bit over as hundred years before he lived. They were cultural ambassadors in a way.

0

lebiro t1_j9r1rxo wrote

The article doesn't say this.

Firstly it may be the earliest mention of Jesus Christ, but it might also not be a reference to him, and may in fact date to "the late 2nd century B.C."

Secondly the article does use the translation "magician" for the Greek word "goistas" but it gives no indication that the word signified a travelling performer doing 'tricks' for money. It talks about fortune-tellers and soothsayers, who offered what we might call 'service magic', i.e. magic for functional purposes, not for entertainment. We can't speculate about what individual practitioners thought or believed about what they were doing but we can say with confidence that the people who came to them in large part did so because they believed they could really learn about the future (or in other cases be healed, find their stolen goods or buried treasure, etc). Not a David Blaine situation at all, unless I am to understand that the people at David Blaine's shows believe he actually has supernatural powers.

I am not a historian of first century Greece and I don't speak Greek, so it could well be that the word on the cup does signify an entertainer (though I highly doubt it), but the article absolutely doesn't support the idea that Jesus was perceived as someone who "travelled around performing magic tricks for donations".

4

[deleted] t1_j9r28iw wrote

[deleted]

−4

lebiro t1_j9r35q0 wrote

Would you care to point out what I've said that suggests I've "had trouble with this article"? (Which, incidentally, is an nbc news puff piece).

I think perhaps you should take your own advice.

6

Pogo152 t1_j9q6flj wrote

The article linked doesn’t confirm that the bowl is the earliest mention of Jesus Christ. According to the article, it’s just as if not more probable that the bowl predates Jesus Christ. Even if it doesn’t, there isn’t much reason to think that the “Christ” mentioned is Jesus Christ. “Christ” wasn’t Jesus’s last name or something, it’s the Greek word for messiah, a title that could be used for lots of religious or mythological figures before the dominance of Christianity.

2

[deleted] t1_j9qe6jf wrote

[deleted]

1

Pogo152 t1_j9qu3sw wrote

I already read the whole article

>dating between the late 2nd century B.C. And the early 1st century A.D.

Most of that timeframe well predates when Jesus Christ could have been born. It seems that, at best this could have been contemporary with Jesus or made within a couple decades of his supposed death, and considering that Christianity was yet to really catch on at this time, it makes it even more doubtful that Jesus is being referred to here.

Also, the article admits that the idea that the “Christ” being referred to is Jesus (as, once again, “Christ” is a title and not part of his name) is based purely on speculation. The entire second-half of the article is discussing different explanations for the writing on the bowl.

The whole thing seems kinda like click-bait. The article runs with the interpretation that will grab the most attention and the couches it in weasel words like “could very well be”, “is speculated”, and “it is very probable”. No actual evidence is furnished within the article for this interpretation.

8

jcd1974 t1_j9p0s5v wrote

At least back then people had an excuse (lack of universal public education).

33

creggieb t1_j9pldhp wrote

"Because nobody told me" isn't a good reason for such ignorance.

Credulance as a default isn't banished by school. In fact they kind want that you believe ebeeything that school says is true, and work towards understanding your error if you disagree.

Very few teachers actually cause rational thought. Mostly the system tells you what rational thought is and grades on how well you repeat that back to them

−9

Zandrick t1_j9pmc4s wrote

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. “Because nobody told me” is the actual definition of ignorance.

I do agree though, that critical thinking is more important than wrote memorization.

19

creggieb t1_j9qveep wrote

Yes, critical thinking is what isn't taught.

"Because nobody told me" is also the definition of willfull ignorance. If we say

"because i chose not to inform myself, relying on others to fulfill this responsibility for me"

The idea becomes more clear.

−1

Zandrick t1_j9r01tb wrote

Those are two very different statements.

“Nobody told me” implies withheld information, like a secret.

“Choose not to inform myself” is a failure of personal responsibility, sure.

But either way, you are talking about ignorance, both things are ignorance. If someone withholds secret information from you, you are ignorant of that information.

2

FuckFuckFakultativ t1_j9pdwqo wrote

> It's genuinely amazing when you begin to realise how completely credulous people in the past were. > > I know we're not necessarily much better now, but as time goes on the methods needed to fool people are becoming more and more sophisticated.

Influencer is just a new word for salesman ;)

27

HPmoni t1_j9pyr15 wrote

People refused to look at Obama's birth certificate in 2008.

People have their ideas about something and they refuse to change them.

25

Positive_Try_5699 t1_j9q3pv2 wrote

Tbf didn't lighting suck then? Surely "dimly lit" was just their default? It's not just that they couldn't see in that lighting, but maybe they couldn't envision a world in which you could see with clarity, and so their mind never even went to the possibility of manoeuvres obscured by lack of vision.

I think a modern equivalent (maybe slightly too literal) would be if future generations had hyper-fluorescent lighting that illuminated every single speck and shadow beyond modern capabilities. There are lots of magic / party tricks we're still vaguely fooled by today that wouldn't be able to withstand that scrutiny. They wouldn't impress a 5 year old from the future even if the lights were turned off etc – the 5 year old would have the ability to envision simple visual possibilities in their mind that us adults today can't

10

tahitisam t1_j9r3uef wrote

You’re aware that they could go outside during the day, aren’t you ?…

If someone did a trick in a dark room that they couldn’t replicate outside it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to assume that the darkness has something to do with it…

4

NoChipmunkToes t1_j9qcjtz wrote

Um, qanon, the cult of trump, Mormons, jehovahs, flat earthers etc etc. The past is no different to today. Dumbfucks gonna dumbfuck.

6

houseman1131 t1_j9q0nw3 wrote

Vaccine conspiracies and child slavery rings under strip mall pizzerias.

2

thegreatestajax t1_j9t7cgl wrote

More sophisticated? Today you just needs to be part of the same political tribe and people will believe whatever you say.

1

Landlubber77 t1_j9ojuhs wrote

"You are loved forever, without condition."

"Thank you heavenly mother."

"There is a healing light inside of your heart, let it shine always."

"I will heavenly mother."

"The Pope wears a butt plug under that robe."

"He does heavenly mother fucker what?!"

77

Mete11uscimber t1_j9p0u37 wrote

"slide a fiver in the crack of the wall and I'll tell you..."

17

Latyon t1_j9pkwno wrote

"Is that a glory hole?"

"Yes it is, my son, but it'll cost you a whole sixer if you wish to unburden yourself in that way. But for the record, I'm...open...to it..."

13

CrieDeCoeur t1_j9ohuo3 wrote

Now that was a committed Protestant

75

[deleted] t1_j9ofy5w wrote

[deleted]

53

WalkingTurtleMan t1_j9p7ndk wrote

In many ways there’s a lot of parallels to misinformation on the internet and misinformation with the first printing press. Times are not exactly the same but they sure do rhyme.

19

You_Bore_Me_ t1_j9ojyoj wrote

You can find that same stupidity online. Look no further than Generation Z.

−84

catfurcoat t1_j9oknni wrote

Haha yeah. Generations younger than me are stupid

47

Bowens1993 t1_j9p57dy wrote

Well they do have less experience.

−14

catfurcoat t1_j9pbeb8 wrote

Yes, well, I'm at that age where even though I recognize that I have more experience than them, we are also not living in the same world that we were when I was young

11

Bowens1993 t1_j9pgz3a wrote

That doesn't make your experience irrelevant.

−8

catfurcoat t1_j9pkq4y wrote

No, I suppose not, although it did make some courses in college I took irrelevant 🥲. One thing I admire about gen z though, is their ability to collectively organize. They will need that unity.

2

Bowens1993 t1_j9pmui3 wrote

>is their ability to collectively organize.

Unfortunately, that organization comes from a lack of independent thought. A generation have a wide range of opinions is not a bad thing.

−5

catfurcoat t1_j9ptcnc wrote

Having the same opinion about society and politics not serving the people anymore is not a bad thing.

Like, sure they all dress the same but does that really matter?

0

Bowens1993 t1_j9ptwhb wrote

Yes it is. Most of the time these values come with experience. Something that generation doesn't have yet.

0

catfurcoat t1_j9pubk5 wrote

We only gave them two political choices: far right or far left. It's not a generational problem it's a systemic problem.

1

ninjasaiyan777 t1_j9orjfi wrote

My father's generation was putting lead in gasoline.

My generation didn't have smartphones to record our stupid shit for most of our youths.

My son's generation is on TikTok or vine acting like kids do.

But yeah, Gen z is totally the worst.

37

AxiousDeMorte t1_j9ol15r wrote

Don't do that. We were all dumb kids, look no further then America's Funniest Home Videos. I could argue the same for a good helping of adults too, just saying, but it's not a generational thing.

34

Bowens1993 t1_j9p54s8 wrote

Seems like they can give it but the can't take it.

−7

ClubSea7973 t1_j9og5ah wrote

I wonder how she ate and went to the bathroom? She must’ve come out of her hiding spot at some point during the day😩. She’s super silly for sure.

17

KypDurron t1_j9p5mlx wrote

"Bob getting stuck in the wall and convincing Tina that he's inside her horse poster" vibes.

15

Thewrongbakedpotato t1_j9qwx2s wrote

I was about to remark that people in 1554 must have been dumb as shit but then remembered some of the bumper stickers I see when I drive to work and am forced to conclude that people, in general, are just dumb as shit.

5

basec0m t1_j9p6fit wrote

In spooky voice... the church is evil (aaaaaachoooo)

4

Underworld_Denizen t1_j9qxfti wrote

Man, people sure were gullible back then.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll order some more healing crystals.

4

Mr-Warmth t1_j9q6kpk wrote

Why is it "propaganda?"

Is it perspective?

As Obi Wan Kenobi said “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

3

MAXQDee-314 t1_j9pupi5 wrote

Laura Crofts's ancestry starting an industry!

2

Johannes_P t1_j9quk1f wrote

I'm sure these 17000 people just loved to have a divine authority confirming their bias. Had Elizabeth Crofts said the Pope is the rightful head of Christianity, she would have been hanged for praemuire.

2

Kurtotall t1_j9rajxm wrote

Go to the Dagobah system.

2

GuyNamedWhatever t1_j9rdqtz wrote

I mean, anti-catholic propaganda in 1554 was just “church bad” and would reward you with 4 donkeys pulling your limbs off at the joints.

2

Responsible_Oven_346 t1_j9runbb wrote

That one guy in the crowd : You're not crazy, I can hear them too :)

2

havohej_ t1_j9s6ukg wrote

Insane how gullibility in humans has not waned. People were listening to a wall talk then, and today, they receive inspired information from some fucking loser on 4chan.

2

DreyaNova t1_j9pn278 wrote

It’s good to have a hobby?

1

Chewyninja69 t1_j9q95ij wrote

Any relation to that one Tomb Raider chick, I wonder?

1

HardenYoung t1_j9qoeep wrote

I’m impressed her secret stayed safe this long

1

Joggingmusic t1_j9qvsb5 wrote

Feels like the premise to “radio bart”

1

tone4days t1_j9r79ki wrote

I guess she was anti Catholic propaganda.

1

NearHorse t1_j9rhu1a wrote

Aldersgate? Isn't that where Slough House from Slow Horses is located?

1

Soyoulikedonutseh t1_j9ovudz wrote

Is it really propaganda if it's speaking out against propaganda?

−3

rooktookabook t1_j9owczz wrote

Yes. Propaganda isn't inherently bad, people just associate the word with "the bad propaganda"

10

[deleted] t1_j9p5lfu wrote

Propaganda or historical facts? Catholics have killed million of humans throughout history in the name of Christ.

−4

RobertoSantaClara t1_j9r6jjc wrote

This is 16th century England, not Mexico. The English reformation was kickstarted by a fat king wanting to manage his own church and not having to listen to the Pope anymore, it wasn't some grandiose fight for freedom and against foreign encroachment.

Hell, Henry VIII had been named Defender of the [Catholic] Faith by the Pope only a few years before he left the church!

4

[deleted] t1_j9rgtj1 wrote

Lol you sound like a conservative Christian Fascist. What’s your childhood trauma?

−1

gingerrex t1_j9pfc1s wrote

Millions have been killed simply for greed. People in the past by today todays standards were not good people. If it wasn't Christianity it would have been different a religion.

3

RedSonGamble t1_j9oi39m wrote

“Hid” bitch got stuck and went crazy

−16