Talk:The Shortest Way with the Dissenters

I don't understand
If Defoe wrote stuff in the pamphlet that's basically the same as what other pamphlets said, why the furore over it? --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because of how virulent his language was. Once it was discovered that it was written by Defoe, there was opposition from both the High Anglicans AND the Dissenters! Because of the lingering doubt that Defoe might have held some of those views if he could make such a convincing display of them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the language issue, I don't get a sense from the article that his language was any more virulent than that of other publications by those who genuinely held the views. On the Defoe himself front, so what if he held those opinions? Why was that so controversial, when apparently lots of other people held the identical view without anyone caring. This is very perplexing. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking a look into the cited articles if you're interested, I can't really give you much more of an answer. Perhaps being ironic (or not, as the case may be), Defoe went simply further than anyone had been willing to go? Here's a selection, apparently, from where he advocates the execution of Dissenters:
 * If the gallows instead of the [prison] and the gallies instead of the fine were the reward of going to [their places of worship], there would not be so many sufferers. The spirit of martyrdom is over."
 * ... and people afterwards were willing to support that sort of view, but presumably not to call for it themselves? Not sure. I agree, it's slightly odd. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Harley ministry
How could a pamphlet written in 1702 criticize the conduct of the "Harley ministry," when Harley himself did not join the ministry until 1704? john k (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Literary Encyclopedia source which I made use of is obviously incorrect then; it says: "The ruling moderate Tory government, led by Sir Robert Harley (1661-1724), were not amused by the cause célèbre occasioned by a pamphlet which provided ample and embarrassing fuel to the political fire which blazed around their leadership." Relying on the author knowing what they were talking about, I didn't check the dates. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In 1702, Godolphin and Nottingham (and Marlborough) would have been the leading figures in the ministry. Harley, as Speaker, was obviously also an important personage in British politics at the time, but he wasn't in the ministry yet. As far as I know, he also wasn't a knight until after he received his peerage, and would never have been called "Sir Robert Harley." john k (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)