Talk:Mary Sidney

---

Untitled

The Shakesperean authorship section should be deleted or reduced to a couple of lines at most. Not only is it very badly written with grammatical errors ("spa's" instead of "spas") and with sentences juxtaposed that have no clear relation to each other, it is ridiculous that it makes up a good chunk of the whole article when the theory is derided by serious Shakesperean scholars. It is not even a popular theory among the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theorists.

Also rather than the highly misleading and ambiguous label of 'independent American scholar' for Robin P Williams - a label that implies she is a free-thinking member within American academia - it would be more honest to delete this label altogether. She is someone best known for writing manuals on using Macbooks, not as a 'scholar' of any standing.

I would like to delete or to reduce the section to a simple line stating that she has been put forward as a candidate for the "true" Shakespeare by Robin P Williams and Fred Faulkes.--Youngpossum (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm worried about this passage:

"A close examination of her writing style clearly demonstrates that they are two different writers. Mary Sidney is predominently a religious writer, interested in human and divine learning and spirituality in all its aspects, while William Shakespeare's focus is on the human personality, deception, love, passion and on "the surface of the earth". Shakespeare's main inspiration was Ovid, but both authors share a deep love for the Bible, for poetry, beauty and the Classics."

Surely writing style is much different from the subject or topic about which one writes, yet no citation or evidence is given in support of the claim that there is a difference in writing style, but only a difference in focus. It seems that if one were to write under a pseudonym and also under one's real name, one could very well be doing it because one wants to be publicly associated with some of the works and not with others (i.e., Sidney could have wanted to be recognized as a religious writer, and not as the largely political writer Shakespeare was). Couldn't it be that Sidney did this intentionally? This is far from my area of research, but I'd like to see some better citations and a clearer NPOV. KSchutte 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Schutte, Thanks for the comments. I have clarified on the new updated page that proof of Mary Sidney^s authorship of Shakespeare's plays and poems lies with proponents of this theory. I have not read any Shakespearean scholar who supports this idea. Can you suggest one? They recognise that though Shakespeare is extremely "self-effacing", he has a "presiding" personality, which readers recognise. There has been extensive computer analysis of his language. Mary Sidney's language must reflect that "exact" profile. I would recommend Caroline Spurgeon's book on Shakespeare's imagery, in which she compares the imagery of Bacon and Shakespeare and demonstates that the latter's fits a very distinctive "profile". Shakespeare's imagery is extremely concrete, drawn from the small kitchen and garden of Henley Street in Stratford. It is also related to transformations, movement or speed. Bacon's images are cerebral, static and abstrac, in harmony with his more aristocratic early upbringing.

I am just setting up web pages which I will link to this page. One will be to my modernisation of Mary Sidney's translation of "A Discourse of Life and Death", a Protestant philosophical essay, on the frustrations of this life, and the other to the last Act from Sidney's play on Mark Antonie. I think that will convince you and others that the "presiding" voice of Shakespeare is missing from her excellent, passionate work. Her placing and choice of adjectives is unlike his e.g. he would never refer to "boiling tears"!

Will proponents of the "Sidney is Shakespeare" theory produce evidence of her Shakesperian language profile and her "Shakesperean" use of imagery?

Interestingly, there is a line from Emilia Lanier's poem "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" (1611) in a section on Mary Sidney, which seems, tantalisingly, to suggest that Mary Sidney gave "light" to the truly famous, even mentioning the words "the globe".

"This nymph quoth he, great Pembroke hight by name

Sister to valiant Sidney, whose clear light

Gives light to all who tread true paths of fame,

Who in the globe of heaven doth shine so bright"

Regards, Alison J. Bailey 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Alison Bailey

I think your changes resolve my complaint. I look forward to seeing further scholarship on the comparison between these two figures. Even the possibility is fun to think about.  ;) KSchutte 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice a possible discrepancy in the history. Near the beginning, it states that she nursed Elizabeth through smallpox and got sick herself. At the end of the biography, it states she died of small pox.

As far as I know, once one has had smallpox, one can not get it again, so one of the two 'facts' is probably wrong. This should probably be checked and fixed. Perhaps one of the poxes was 'the large pox' rather than the small one.

N5bz (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The Mary Sidney who nursed Elizabeth was this individual's mother. This individual was only one year old when Elizabeth caught smallpox. I agree with you that it could be clearer; I'll try to make it so. --NellieBly (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Simplifying

I was directed to this article by someone who asked the same question of me in real life as User:N5bz did above. It seemed to me that if two people had the same reaction to an article there might be a problem, so I read over the first paragraph. It was just too confusing and the irrelevant details and long sentences and repeated use (three (3) times in one little paragraph) of the mother's maiden name and the use of her first name obfuscated what the paragraph was attempting to say: that Mary's mother, not Mary herself, nursed Elizabeth. I pruned it down (Mary Sidney's grandfather's troubles are well-described in his article, no need to list them here) and made only one reference to Mary's mother's maiden name (calling her "Lady Sidney" otherwise, which clears up matters). --NellieBly (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

This article desperately needs citations and seems to have become a dumping ground for fringe theorists. I have removed the most egregious of the material in the hope of attracting some good editors who usually flee from a potential battleground such as this. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

SAQ in the Mary Sidney article

The fringe belief that Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare does not belong in this article. It is not sufficiently notable for its own article and not even notable enough to be mentioned in any other article except the SAQ. The book that sets forth this theory was published by a computer book publisher and is not a reliable source for scholarly works. It was essentially self-published by a writer of computer books, who wrote the book and designed the book on her computer, and invented the imprint Wilton Circle Press to publish this one book. In addition, the Newsweek article that mentions the theory is an example of junk food news and not an extensive reference of [Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories the type required] to be sufficient for mention.

By your logic, the SAQ should have a section in each of the articles about the 65 authorship candidates. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see newest refs to Washington Post and Washington Times. Hardly junk food news. Have no fear about all 65 candidates. Great majority are not notable candidates. Those that are (like Sidney) are easily referenced. Smatprt (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

None of them are notable, including Mary Sidney, since it's a fringe theory and it is not a significant viewpoint that merits inclusion. I have edited a compromise that doesn't violate WP:DUE as much as your edit, because I don't want to spend the next two weeks at the discussion boards, although I can't guarantee other editors won't object to it. My attitude is that this is not worth fighting about at this time and can be taken up later. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the material that you would like to remove comprises useful information that summarizes several books each in one sentence. Your insertion of the comment that Sidney is considered a candidate because of her connections to Shakespeare is a false summation of the many works that have investigated her possible candidacy as the Shakespearean author. Please get out of this until you are willing to honestly summarize the work of others, who have invested many man-years considering this issue and have made a case that is very cogent.Jdkag (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request For Mediation

Tom, I see that you've removed the Mary Sidney authorship question from this entry, as well as from the main authorship entry. I have copied the relevant text below. I suggest we move this to Wiki Dispute Resolution. Would you be interested in mediation?

Main article: Shakespeare authorship question

A theory that Mary Sidney wrote at least some of the poetry and plays attributed to William Shakespeare has been revived by Robin P. Williams, in her book, Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman write Shakespeare? According to Williams, Mary Sidney had the scholarship, ability, motive, means and opportunity to write the plays. In 2006, Canadian librarian Fred Faulkes published the first volume of The Tiger Heart Chronicles – a "narrative reconstruction of everything touching on Shakespearean history" in which he also put forward the Sidney claim. Supporters of Sidney as a Shakespeare candidate point to a number of events that tie her to the Shakespeare legacy. For example, Sidney's sons sponsored the printing of Shakespeare's First Folio after her death, seven years after Shakespeare died, and the folio contained material that had never appeared before. Ben Jonson's glowing eulogy to Shakespeare, included in the Folio, is directed to the "Sweet Swan of Avon," an epitaph also fitting of Sidney, who wore a gown embroidered with swans, a symbol of the Sidney family, and whose home was in the area of the Avon River and its tributaries.Jdkag (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"the man Shakespeare"

Apparently this comes from a diary entry (around 1865) by William Johnson Cory, the teacher at Eton who wrote the poem "Heraclitus." He claimed to have been told about this letter when visiting Wilton, but was never actually shown it. When Sir Edmund Kerchever Chambers investigated, he was informed said letter was sent to the British Museum or the Public Record Office. But it can't be found there? Has anyone ever actually seen the letter? Is Cory the only source for its existence? One source is The Repertory of Shakespeare's Company, 1594-1613. See also: "We have the man Shakespeare: Edward de Vere and the lost letter of Wilton" in Shakespeare Matters Vol.2 no.3 Spring 2003. Artaxerxes (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed this to "According to one account, Shakespeare performed..." Obviously, Cory's account of having heard from another source is not very definitive and does not warrant too much attention.Jdkag (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mary's name

User:Artaxerxes do you have a source for the claim that her name is nowadays written that way? And even if some people have started calling her that in recent years, is that really a valid reason for using an anachronistic form of her name which she herself would never have used? Zacwill16 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this discussion here. Best to consider possible implications before making such a change. A simple Google search on "Mary Sidney Herbert" brings up number of examples where this has become the regular way to refer to her, including:

• Poetry Foundation: Mary Sidney Herbert
• Mary Sidney Society (see how their premise is stated in second paragraph)
• The Sidney Homepage
• The Shakespearean Authorship Trust

Not to overlook all that's been written about her in print, such as:

• The Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke: Volume I: Poems, Translations, and Correspondence (Oxford English Texts)

See also how these sources refer to her name:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Mary Herbert, countess of Pembroke
• Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke (discussion on how her name is often used at end of introductory paragraph: "Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke may also be referred to as Mary Sidney Herbert, Mary Herbert, or Mary Sydney. (Note that references may be alphabetized under Herbert, Pembroke, Sidney, or Sydney. She is sometimes erroneously referred to as “Lady Mary Herbert,” which was the title of her sister-in-law.")

The point is not that you are wrong about contemporary usage, just that a source like Wikipedia needs to account for popular usage, covering the bases, as so many will be searching on her commonly-used name today. Using some sort of explanation, such as the Oxford Bibliographies, might do the trick. --Artaxerxes 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that if we must use an incorrect "popular" form, it would be best to put it after her real name. Thus "Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (27 October 1561 – 25 September 1621), sometimes referred to as Mary Sidney Herbert..."

I'd also like to point out that her name is only written the way it is because of this revision made a couple of days ago. So it's not like I'm trying to uproot an established convention. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The "sometimes referred to as" approach would be a good beginning. The page would then want some further explanation—i.e., that it's a modern usage not seen in her day. At the same time, it might be good to address the sometimes-seen "Lady Mary Herbert", which is actually her sister-in-law's title (according to above). --Artaxerxes 16:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)