Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Is Kathman a reliable source?

After reading a number of David Kathman's pages, I find his anger, his name calling and his attitude comlpletely unprofessional. He also makes some pretty far reaches in his original research on Shakespeare Authorship, which as far as I know has never been seriously published. I note in his bio that he is not a professional researcher, nor has he had any books published on the authorship. A few articles and a "contributor" yes, but actual verifiable books - I don't think so. His website is self-published and completely one-sided to the point of the ridiculous, and obviously undergoes no scrutiny what-so-ever. Can someone please explain why his personal website is considered a reliable source? Is he really the best and most reliable source that can be cited? Smatprt 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

David Kathman is knowledgable on the subect of Elizabethan and Jacobean theatrical history, which is his specialization by avocation (he holds a PhD in linguistics on a topic unrelated to early modern studies) and on which he has published in The Shakespeare Quarterly and other authoritative journals. Notably, these same journals have not published any of his work on authorship, at least in part because his views on the subject are, as you say, often indefensible. His work on the Tempest, for example has been thoroughly debunked; his fantasy about Shakespeare studying in Richard Field's library is a just-so story about how the leopard got its spots that George Greenwood demolished eighty years ago; his past claims that only the Oxfordians think that Po lonius is modelled on Burghley are so preposterously erroneous and suggest that, as you imply, he has been so dedicated to the orthodox view that he often failed to do much research before opening his mouth and instead exercised frequent recourse to abusing his interlocutors as a substitute for what rational argument could not provide.--BenJonson 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Kathman is not a source, he quotes sources. Mandel 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, when Kathman quotes a source, then it can be verified. However when Kathman posts his own original research (without sources) on his personal website, then I believe this original resource should not be used as a source. Is that correct?Smatprt 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Kathman's site is not under Wikipedia, and anything else is not OR. So you are incorrect. He must be reliable of course. Also, as far as can be ascertained, Kathman doesn't post anything not backed by a book or an essay. As Stratfordians go, he argues very persuasively. Of course, no one is deluded enough to believe he would convince every non-Stratfordians - not even, I think, the appearance of a ghost would do that. List, List! Mandel 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use the sources quoted by Kathman. However, websites such as his are not considered valid sources for WP, especially since there are a endless number of books and journal articles we can use instead of his.--Alabamaboy 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, I don't think that's true. Kathman is certainly a reliable source. See his CV. [1]. WP policy on this matter is very clear. Self-published sources - be they websites or books - do not count as reliable sources unless the author is already established as a scholar by reliable publishers. The passage is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." This is clearly the case with Kathman. Smatprt's behaviour is a shocking attempt to delete material from an established scholar. I don't see "Statfordians" atempting to delete the links to the Oxfordian website. These extreme double-standards should not be tolerated. I don't have time for detailed debate at the moment, but this should be clearly articluated. Paul B 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul - since you feel the authorship question is so easily debunked, why on earth would you need questionable sources such as the Kathman website? His professional CV is 99% non-authorship related. Wow - in his spare time he wrote a news article and has done some interviews. So have I - does that make me a source? Hardly. In any case, Kathman's authorship theories have not received publication by reliable entities - I imagine for all the reasons stated by BenJonson above. His beliefs about Polonius/Burghley and his essays denying the stigma of print and on the meaning Puttenham's "with the rest" are ridiculous, no matter what side of the authorship issue one stands on.Smatprt 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing questionable about it. The point is that Kathman directly addresses Oxfordian arguments. Most books on Shakespeare don't, so any responses not directly addressing some made-up claim like Ben/Roger's "four day's growth of beard" theory will be immediately dismissed by you as OR. That's the problem - double standards. Non reliability of sources is OK for Oxfordians, but not for the mainstream. As for he "wrote a news article and has done some inteviews", I quote "In 2004, I had major articles published in Shakespeare Quarterly ("Grocers, Goldsmiths, and Drapers: Freemen and Apprentices on the Elizabethan Stage") and Early Theatre ("Reconsidering The Seven Deadly Sins"), and I have articles forthcoming in 2005 in Shakespeare Survey (on the ages of boy actors) and Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama (on playhouse financiers in the London livery companies). Specifically on authorship-related matters -- in addition to maintaining the Shakespeare Authorship page with Terry Ross -- I wrote a chapter called "The Question of Authorship" for the volume Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, edited by Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin and published by Oxford University Press in 2003; in April 2001". You never even bothered to look did you? Paul B 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I looked at his CV (thus the interview references), and in terms of verifiable authorship work (a chapter?!?), I saw very little (if any). So are you saying that if I write a book on one subject (Apprentices, ages of boy actors, etc.), I am suddenly a reliable source for another subject (authorship)?Smatprt 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are being silly. The subject on which expertise has to be demonstrated is Elizabethan literature. Anyway, did you miss the bit about a chapter called "The Question of Authorship" for the volume Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, edited by Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin and published by Oxford University Press. Perhaps you are suffering from MEBS, or "Mainstream Evidence Blindness Syndrome". It's a common condition on Wikipedia. Paul B 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we making fun of the handicapped now? Would you feel bad if I told you that a dear friend of mine went blind shortly before he died, and that I find nothing funny about "blind" jokes?Smatprt 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No I would feel not bad, because I a did not make a "blind joke". But you should feel bad for wilfully misusing your friend's suffering to make such an outrageous "point". You do take the biscuit for preoposterous sanctimony and evading the issue. Paul B 09:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I've found this conversation rather comical. If this is valid what are we going to do with the contributions of, for example, Mark Anderson, that well known writer for Rolling Stone? Or any of the enthusiastic amateurs that make up the anti-Stratford camp? However, while this discussion is still running I see Smatprt is systematically working through Wikipedia, removing all Kathman references, so I think we need to reach some resolution, here. Would anyone object to me raising this at RfC? AndyJones 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy - after you clarified that Kathman is not RS and this was confirmed by Alabamaboy, it seemd appropriate to delete the Kathman references. As that Anderson, Stritmatter, and Ogburn have all had major works published by 3rd party houses, their status as RS seems plain. Is not this incorrect?Smatprt 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means raise it at RfC. The situation is clear re Kathman. Paul B 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that WP:RS is quite clear about the nature of priorities - they concern the reliability of the author. The other matters are indicators pointing to the status of the author. I quote "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology." Now Ogburn has no qualifications in the subject. Neither as far as I know does Anderson. Neither of their books are published by academic presses. Both are published by commercial presses - which tells us only that they were considered salable, not reliable. By this standard The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail should be considered a reliable source on the life of Jesus, since it is published by Random House. Ogburn was published by EPM Publications. Here's their website.[2] You can see how scholarly they are. The publishers of Anderson are Gotham press, an avowedly commercial outfit. [3]. In contrast, Kathman was published by Oxford University Press in a book edited by Stanley Wells. It doesn't get more RS than that. Paul B 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Added to RfC. (My only comment is that I don't want to be counted in the "Kathman=not RS" camp on account of anything I've said. I have cited Kathman myself occasionally.) AndyJones 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Joseph Sobran, I think a wikilink is quite enough said. Paul B 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Andy, first you advised that Kathman is not RS. Did I misintrepret?

squeezing this comment between two paragraphs of Smatprt's If you're referring to me saying "The problem with Kathman is WP:RS", here then please interpret me as if I'd said "The problem with Kathman is alleged to be WP:RS". The point of the sentence was to draw the distinction between that and WP:OR, not to weigh in on either side of this debate. AndyJones 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul - attempting to start a debate about whether Randon House is a third party publisher is an interesting tactic. The fact that Kathman contributed "a chapter" that was then edited by two other editors, among 40 other contributors in what amounts to a collection of essays simply doesn't make him an expert or a RS. As others have pointed out Kathman quotes sources, but is not a source himself. Now, quoting from his one published essay on the authorship may be acceptable, but from his unedited, unchecked, not in "good tasete" (to quote RS), and (often) derogatory website? I don't think so. Because mainstream writers have published some 5000 books on Shakespeare, it is amazing that you (or anyone) would NEED to rely on Kathman. Is he really the best you guys can come up with?Smatprt 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"attempting to start a debate about whether Random House is a third party publisher is an interesting tactic" What on earth are you talking about? You said "As that Anderson, Stritmatter, and Ogburn have all had major works published by 3rd party houses, their status as RS seems plain." By that argument almost every book published would count as a reliable source, simply by virtue of its existence in print. Your other comments display woeful... innocence about the nature of academic publishing. Paul B 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that a brand new user has reinserted the Kathman personal website with the label "the most important site on the Authorship" or some such. Interesting that the poster is Tom Reedy, whose name appears on the sites' opening article right along side Kathman. His announcement that the site (that features his name) is the "most important site" on the web is self-adulation taken to the extreme. Would anyone like to defend Mr. Reedy's blatant tactic?Smatprt 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That includes you and Tom Reedy. He, unlike some people, is not making any effort to keep his identity secret. As usual, your presentation of facts is unreliable. He said it was the "most cited" not the most important. Paul B 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did say "or some such" - indicating it was not a direct quote. Most cited? still bragging about his own site with a statement that is unsourced and unverifiable. And Spam. Smatprt 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam has nothing to do with it. There is no rule against citing your own work. The site is not commercial. Paul B 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there's WP:COI. But this SPAM thing is a complete red-herring. This link wasn't added by Tom Reedy. It has been on the page since long before Smatprt became a wikipedian, and was removed by Smatprt a few days ago, since when there has been an edit war. I think the edit war is futile, too. Does anyone see ANY site under the Oxfordian External Links banner that would be kept if we applied Smatprt's criteria to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)

WP:COI clearly states that one may cite ones own publications as well as anyone else's. However, its strictures may easily be applied to Smatprt: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. Conflicts may include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, or criticizing competitors." Paul B 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From the RfC: If Kathman wrote on authorship for a collection published by OUP, he is quotable to a degree. I would urge caution, in such cases, though: consider the case of, for example, Nicholas Kazanas, who contributed a single article to a peer-reviewed journal on the Indo-Aryan migration debate specifically as a representative of a minority, somewhat crank-y, view. The level of review was waived for his contribution precisely in order to permit his views to be debunked. Just pointing out something to keep in mind; if Kathman was invited to write a chapter as a prominent representative of a tiny minority of opinion, that does not make him a reliable expert. It may not be applicable in this case. Hornplease 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round in this case! Kathman isn't Kazanas, he's Witzel. Kathman represents the mainstream opinion. But because mainstream scholarship does not typically debate this issue within its journals, most of the published material is from conspiracy theorists (hence my analogy with The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail above). Kathman is one of the few maintream scholars who examines this in detail, but most of this work is on his website, not in "hard copy". Kathman is indisputably a real scholar who represents the mainstream. Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses. This is like accepting Itihas Patrika as a reliable source and rejecting the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies - simply because one is on paper and the other isn't. Paul B 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul - plese don't put words in my mouth. While I do not think that Kathman's site is a RS, I have not argued for or against the inclusion of any other sites, Oxfordian or otherwise. Many Oxfordian links (particularly the responses to Kathman) are also not RS, but will need to stay if Kathman does.

To quote WP: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Alan Nelson's book (for better or worse) affords him a place as a RS, even though he stands alone as the only Oxford biographer who does not believe Oxford had a hand in the plays. His website merely echoes his book so is linkable, even though he seems to be obsesses with Oxford's sex life. Similarly, as both researchers Stritmatter & Price have had their work published by 3rd party publishers, both their works and the sites that focus on their work, are linkable as well. My problem with Kathman is that his site goes way beyond anything he has had published by 3rd party publishers. His original theories on Polonius and Puttenham have never seen the light of print, so it seems ridiculous to link to such articles, unless of course, as WP says: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I still find it amazing that anyone who cares about Wikipedia would want to set Kathman up as as a reliable researcher, considering all the other researchers we have at our disposal.Smatprt 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand at all. The mere fact of being published by a third party does not make you a reliable authority (remember Holy Blood? Did you understand the point I made about that book?). If you are an established scholar then self-published material may be acceptable. Kathman is an established scholar. What words did I put in your mouth? Paul B 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul - you said: "Smatprt is trying to ... while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses." I am not trying to retain ALL material. As I have said, there are Oxfordian links that should go as well, particularly the ones that are simply responses to Kathman. Unfortunately for all of us, if the Kathman sites stay, then those sites will have to stay as well.BTW, WP also says these sources can be "scholarly or non-scholarly".

WP says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." My biggest problem with Kathman's site is that there is no fact-checking going on and no oversite whatsoever.Smatprt 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I can't work out whether you really don't comprehend the policy, are choosing to misrepresent it, or are somehow blanking what you don't want to hear. I will try one more time, as clearly as I can. The policy states that self-published material can be included if the author is established as a reliable authority because he/she has been published in peer-reviewed literature. As long as that person is well established, then they can be trusted to be their own editor. That has no implications for websites that reply to Kathman, unless their authors are also independently established as specialists. That's the central point. As far as I can tell, you do want to include all material that has been published in book form by "non-scholarly, purely commercial presses", since your argument is that they count as reliable simply because they have been published by independent publishers. The policy clearly states that this is not necessarily the case, since it depends on the expertise of the author. Hence the sentence "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology." There are thousands of books on ghosts, angels, aliens and all sorts of subjects published all the time. The mere fact of being published does not make the reliable, any more than Eric von Daniken is a "reliable source" on the history of the Aztecs. Likewise, the mere fact of having been published does not make Sobran, Ogburn or Anderson a reliable source. Paul B 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What Paul has been saying throughout. Kathman is clearly an acceptable source - he has published not only on Elizabethan literature broadly, but also specifically on the authorship question, in reputable publications (an OUP book, notably). If he is not a reliable source, I can't begin to imagine who would be. john k 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I still maintain that while Kathman's one published chapter (which seems to be the foundation for your case) may be reliable, the unedited and unchecked assertions on his website (those NOT mentioned in his "chapter") are clearly out of bounds - unless, of course, they can be referenced to other sources. Re: Ogburn, etc. - the research of non-scholars (also open to definition) is certainly allowed. Of course, if a work is labled as beyond reason or comprehension, then there will be plenty of critics who will be quotable to discount that person's work. No one seems to have a problem citing Alan Nelson, even though he was a one-book wonder who many researchers disagree with. Smatprt 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS - "In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." Ogburn, et al, are certainly the most reliable sources for informaiton of Oxfordian research and the authorship question. I guess the question here is, is Kathman the most reliable source that those making the Stratfordian argument can came up with?Smatprt 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

and: "However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If Kathman's theories on Polonius or Puttenham have any support, then someone else surely has reported it. Smatprt 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"I still maintain that while Kathman's one published chapter (which seems to be the foundation for your case) may be reliable, the unedited and unchecked assertions on his website (those NOT mentioned in his "chapter") are clearly out of bounds." I have repeatedly explained why this is not the case, quoting the relevant policy. You have never responded to that point. There is no point in repeating the argument yet again, as you will undoubtedly fail to respond yet again. You have not responded either to the point that merely being published on paper does not make you a reliable source. May I however point out to you that I am not saying this because I actually want to exclude all references to Ogburn et al, just to point out that if supporters of the maintream were as ruthless and selective with policy as you are, they could easily make a case for doing so. I'm not sure what theories on Polonius you mean. The Polus point is specifically a response to a fairly obscure Oxfordian claim, so is not likely to be discussed in mainstream literature. As for Puttenham, the interpretation is entirely logical. Since mainstream authors would see no relevance in this passage to Shakespeare, it would not be discussed except in responses to Oxfordian conspiracy theories, which is not a normal part of Shakespeare scholarship. Paul B 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More on Article Balance

I've tried some edits for balance, but the whole thing needs to be rewritten. The current article suggests that there is some serious scholarly basis for the claim that Shakespeare did not write the plays, which is as absurd as creationist claims that evolution is a hoax. There is no serious scholarly debate on this subject, any more than on the subject of evolution.(KevCureton 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

• Yes, I sympathise with your position. There is indeed no intellectually supportable argument for anti-Stratfordianism on the current evidence. Having said that, there are those who actively promote these views, and they therefore need the NPOV treatment here at Wikipedia. I don't think all of your edits were improvements in that regard: specifically, I think that identifying the Stratford side as "scholars" and the other side as not - true though this may be on many levels - flies in the face of WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. I see someone has already reverted you in full, but I'll have a look at the diffs and see what I think is valuable. I have to say I completely reject the parallels with the evolution/creation debate: they are utterly different issues, and starting to debate them here will only become a divisive sideshow. AndyJones 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hold a PhD in literary studies and I disagree with your assessment of the evidence. Indeed, your statement makes me wonder if you have ever actually read anything of substance on the issue. As one resource, you may wish to consult the information here: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org. Also, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would refrain from invidious comparisons of this kind. They are contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. --BenJonson 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I sympathise with your position. There is indeed no intellectually supportable argument for anti-Stratfordianism on the current evidence.

I'm astounded that you would still hold this view. May I ask, have you bothered to read Looney, Ogburn, Sobran, Price, or Anderson before reaching your conclusion? I venture to suggest that would you bother to do so, you would have to revise your opinion about the merits of the anti-Stratfordian case.--BenJonson 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, there are those who actively promote these views, and they therefore need the NPOV treatment here at Wikipedia. I don't think all of your edits were improvements in that regard: specifically, I think that identifying the Stratford side as "scholars" and the other side as not - true though this may be on many levels - flies in the face of WP:NPOV, one of our core policies.

Agreed. It is also not true. There are a substantial number of early modern scholars who have serious doubts about the orthodox account of Shakespearean authorship. Once you move outside of the discipline, the numbers of doubters increase exponentially. The chief reason why more specialists don't take an interest in the authorship question is that they are terrified that expressing such an interest will result in their professional marginalization.--BenJonson 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has already reverted you in full, but I'll have a look at the diffs and see what I think is valuable. I have to say I completely reject the parallels with the evolution/creation debate: they are utterly different issues, and starting to debate them here will only become a divisive sideshow.

Thank You. No kidding. Let's keep such divisive and uninformed comparisons away from this project.--BenJonson 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose non-Stratfordians making at least decent arguments here. The case for the Stratford man is very cohesive, the case against him often contradictory and haphazard. We at least know there was only one Stratford man; how many shady aliases must we have before the case for that one alternative heavyweight candidate is decided upon by no-Stratfordians. Mandel 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Look here http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/faq.html --BenJonson 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those arguing about WP:NPOV above should go read it. The fact that people do in fact have these beliefs in and of itself does not mean they need to be given "equal time". That's a gross distortion of what the NPOV policy is for. NPOV doesn;t say everyone's opinions are treated equally, it says that the topic is balanced based upon the overall view of the topic in its academic field. The evolution/creation debate is PRECISELY the same sort of situation. Lots of people hold a view contrary to the experts in the field, and yes, it shoudl get covered, but, no, that doesn't mean the people with the minority view get to pretend that it's not a minority view. It's all spelled out in the WP:NPOV policy. Spend some time going through it. DreamGuy 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To directly quote WP:NPOV: "For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries, such as the Earl of Oxford or Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters." I see no one at all asking for "equal time" - The page is called "Shakespeare authorship question" not "The Stratford guy did it!". It gives a complete overview, with thumbnail case statements for the major anti-strat candidates, and mentioning numerous times that academic scholars dismiss the whole thing. I really think veryone should be content.Smatprt 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Smatprt on this. We can't ignore these opinions. Sure, it's a mainstream idea that Shakespeare was the author, but other notables have thought otherwise. This is something everyone talks about, in colleges all over the country, and even if the theories are wrong, we can say why (or why they are thought to be wrong. It may be a relatively agreed-upon issue, but it isn't a "settled" issue by any means. As long is it has clear citations in it (which I believe can be found) the authorship question holds a firm place in wikipedia, and doesn't violate NPOV. Wrad 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070423005226&newsLang=en

http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/

History is moving. Wiki should reflect that.--BenJonson 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV actually says that? That's a travesty. john k 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia entry on a historical controversy, like any other controversy in intellectual history. To not acknowledge the historical dimension of the controversy is not to have an encyclopedia article, but rather a deaf dumb and blind apology for a dominant but (by virtue of its ignorance) doomed paradigm. We should do better. --131.118.144.253 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it no longer says that. That material was added piecemeal. First, in December 2004, a user with no other contributions added a bit about Marlowe that nobody caught, completely altering the meaning of that section. Then, more recently, someone added Oxford to the mix. The whole thing was bogus, and not supported by consensus, and has since been removed, thankfully. john k 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is interesting to note that none of the several orthodox commentators has answered my question about whether they've actually ever read a book on the subject that they are talking about. The attitude seems to be, "don't bother me with evidence. I've made up my mind." --131.118.144.253 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [Ben]

Droeshout

OK, let's look at this caption:

Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout (born 1601). This has often been surprising to historians, since the Shakespeare portrait was called "true to life" by Ben Jonson, yet Droeshout was only fifteen years old when Shakespeare died. It has also been considered odd that Droeshout was only 22 years old when the portrait was made, an unusually young age for an engraver. Anti-Stratfordians find these ambiguities suspect and note features in the engraving that make it appear more of a "mask" than a true represention of an actual person.

It is certainly generally accepted that the engraver was Matin D the younger (In fact there are two Martin D's, but Martin the elder was a more skilled artist). Martin D the younger came from a family of engravers and would have been trained in the family workshop from childhood. His age at Shakespeare's death is irrelevant. 22 is certainly not "an unusally young age for an engraver". That's a virtually meaningless statement. They didn't have to complete a PhD before starting! It is generally assumed that the engraving was copied from a drawing, so truth to life is rather irrelevant to how old D was when S died, unless we are to suppose he created it from memory from someone he hadn't seen for years - which would be a remarkable feat no matter how old he was. The stuff about the mask and the "reversed" jacket and the collar is all from within the sub-culture of authorship doubters, not from "historians", certainly not specialist art historians, who have written about this at some length. See the NPG catalogue of their Shakespeare portraits exhibition. Paul B 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your critique. However, as even Leah Marcus, who is about as "orthodox" in her position as one can possibly be, in her book Puzzling Shakespeare, has acknowledged, there are all kinds of reasons why the Droeshout engraving, whether by father or son, might arouse suspicion of something curiously incongruous about the 1623 folio. As Jonson paradoxically wrote, in verses designed to accompany the engraving, "Look not on his picture, but his book." So, although the present wording is poorly contrived, it is appropriate in this entry to address peculiarities of the Droeshout. I'll work on some language that might be more to the point, and perhaps we can discuss it.--BenJonson 01:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the specific claims - the shape of the left side of the doublet and the head-on-body connection. Professional art historians typically explain these features by reference to the way such images were constructed at the time. It was quite common to insert faces or figures from drawings into contexts created by the engraver - often somewhat incongruously, so that heads appear to be stuck clumsily on bodies, or one part of the image seems to be in a different style from another. See some of Marcantonio Raimondi's engravings after Raphael and Michelangelo, or the seriously distorted perspective in William Marshall's 1649 Eikon Basilike print, for example. It's to do with the way engravers were trained and worked - mostly as copyists (analagous to professional reproductive photographers today, who might "photoshop" images when photographing a picture for reproduction, possibly cropping and resizing as they did so). Here are some examples of bad head-body connections from the 17th C.[4] [5] [6] [7]. Engravers were essentially trained in the technical skills of the craft, not in modelling and perspective. Paul B 09:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My question is not whether you have found a professional art historian who argues that these features are not anomolous. And you say "art historians." May I ask who they are -- except for Roy Strong that is? Gainesborough thought the engraving an abomination, and so have many others. But my real question is whether you have read Leah Marcus' commentary on the subject; according to Marcus,there is nothing at all conventional about the Droeshout engraving; indeed it is "protestant," "rhetorically turbulant," and, "iconoclastic." Hmmm. I wonder why that might be? It also has a four day growth of beard on it. Hmmm. Very curious indeed. Can you find another early modern portrait engraving in which the sitter forgot to shave? Finally, you state that "engravers were not [trained] in modelling and perspective." Droeshout, however, was. Look at his other productions. His control of perspective, based on the comparative evidence, was complete. So you argument, as it were, eats up itself. --131.118.144.253 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gainsborough was a rather better artist than Droeshout. Of course he thought it was rubbish, because it is rubbish by Gainsborough's standards. I have not read Marcus, no. I have read the NPG cats on the subject, and articles in Shakespeare Quarterly, plus much literature on 17th century printmaking. Have you? Also, I am a professional art historian, as it happens, and though I have never researched Droeshout, I have researched and lectured on the work of Marshall, who is nearly contemporary. What you call a four day growth of beard is a mixture of stipple-modelling and the depiction of his tache. I have looked at his other productions (though you ignore the fact that it remains uncertain which Droeshout was the artist). They are not masterly by any means. Paul B 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I popped into the library to look at Leah Marcus. Didn't take very long, as she has very little to say about Droeshout, who's only mentioned on a couple of pages. She lists some unflattering things said by writers of the 18th-19th centuries, a time when 17th C engraving in England was generally considered to be crude. She notes that William Blake, the only actual professional engaver whose opinion is listed, actually said it was rather good. At another point she lists some common Baconian/Oxfordian assertions about the the image, clearly without any endorsement of them. That's it. Nothing about "four day's growth of beard". I guess you made that up yourself. If you think Marty's "control of perspective... was complete" I suggest that you look at the 11 examples of Marty's work contained in Hind's Engraving in England in the 16th and 17th centuries. Paul B 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Paul has made sure that no one will think that Leah Marcus' analysis of the Droeshout is relevant to this discussion, pretending that because she only devotes a small portion to her book to the analysis, rather than asking if her argument is either enlightening or valid, I'll fill the gap. This is from Marcus' 1987 book, *Puzzling Shakespeare.* Note the title-- the book is consciously written in response to Ogburn (1984) and the general momentum of the Oxfordian movement in the early and mid 1980's. Marcus is not an Oxfordian and has some very harsh and, imo, misleading things to say about Oxfordians like Freud (34-35, for those who are interested; I'm going to focus on what she says about the Droeshout that Paul apparently thinks is so unimportant):

"...there is something quite odd about the way [the folio] starts out....[the Droeshout] has, we hear, a depressing 'pudding face' and a 'skull' of 'horribly hydrocephalus development'. W.W. Greg put the general complaint more mildly: it is not pleasing and has little technical merit.' It is indeed less elegantly executed than many engravings, but why should it be unpleasing? william Blake, himself an engraver, pronounced it very good. Part of the discomfort may relate, instead, to its unsettling size and directness....it is also stark and unadorned. Unlike most portraits on title pages, it has no frame, no ornamental borders, even though such embellishments are suplied inside the volume for the rest of the introductory material and for the beginning of each play. Nor does the title page include the allegorical figures and devices that might be expected to surround the engraved image of the author in a volume of such size and costliness and which were included in a number of other volumes printed by William Jaggard. [she then discusses the typical engraved frontespieces of the period and remarks]: By contrast with these near contemporary productions, the First Folio of Shakespeare appears stripped down to essentials....(3)...The first folio portrait of Shakespeare has none of these identifying marks. It appears on the title page itself instead of the facing page, and that position gives it special prominence. It was probably copied (sic) from a miniature painted during the author's lifetime, and preserves the sense of immediacy characteristic of the form, but the fact that it is not trimmed into the customary oval gives it a slightly unfinished look. Except for the stiff wired collar, which was out of date by 1623, it offers no particularizing details--only the raw directness of the image, as if to say: this is the Man Himself."

[Marcus then analyzes the way in which Jonson's verses, written to accompany the folio, undermine the engraving's implication that "this is the Man Himself"]:

"On the first folio title page...the various elements are in competition with one another....Ben Jonson's poem is, in a precise sense of the term, iconoclastic, shattering the power of the visual image in order to locate Shakespeare's identity elsewhere, in 'wit.' The poem invites the reader to look beyond the picture, just as the Andrewes volume does, but without having established the author's identity with anything like the same specificity. In fact, Jonson's poem sets the reader off on a treasure hunt for the author: where is the 'real' Shakespeare to be found? In "his Booke."...At a time when English writers were asserting unprecedented autonomy and mastery over their own work through allegorical frontespieces, admonitory prefaces, overt and covert declarations of intent, Jonson's poem abolishes Shakespeare as an entity apart from his writings.... (18-19)...Anti-Stratfordians have argued that there was, indeed, no playwright named Shakespeare: Jonson's iconoclastic advice "To the Reader" was a cryptic message that the man in the portrait was not the author--unless, as some anti-Stratfordians have suggested, what the portrait actually depicts is the real author wearing Shakespeare's face as a mask. These reactions are generated at least in part by the folio title page itself" [Please note that sentence, Paul, for it starkly contradicts your own argument that there is nothing unusual or odd about the folio, as do all the details Marcus uses to develop her case--Ben).....

Then Marcus gives her critique of the anti-Stratfordian interpretation of these elements of the title page:

"Such complaints [about the engraving] blame the picture for a broader discomfort arising out of the endlessly circulating interplay among the elements of the title page -- the portrait, the words above, the poem..."

All in all, Marcus devotes six pages of analysis (not two, Paul) to the prefatory materials to the folio, and reproduces fourteen contemporaneous graphics to illustrate her point about the "iconoclastic" and "rhetorically turbulent" character of these materials, arising as she submits between the contradictory messages of engraving and poem. I would submit that her analysis is very relevant to the present discussion, and I am surprised and dismayed that Paul would attempt to pretend that it isnot. I apologize for going on at some length on this topic, quoting Professor Marcus. But when the history of the editing of this page is told, it is important that these words be on record, regardless of the outcome of a particular moment in the process of crafting the page. The first folio prefatory elements are certainly not, as Paul maintains, "business as usual." The extent of their deviation from renaissance norms is obvious to any reader of Marcus' analysis. --BenJonson 01:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)