Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Idiolect and Forensic Linguistics

Can anyone cite studies of Shakespeare's idiolect by someone like a forensic linguistics expert regarding the unique vocab used in the works of WS??? - it seems totally missing from the debate in the article AND the discussion page. Just a thought. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jonson phrase

The phrase, as quoted in W.T. Baldwins's William Shakspere's Smalle Latine and lLesse Greeke, on p.2, where he gives the entire poem, is "small Latine, and lesse Greeke". IMO "small Latin and less Greek" (andnot to mention other omissions of the comma) are acceptable (the spelling change constituting translation or modernization), but i need to see refs to support any versions that have anything but 0 or 3 of those terminal E's. (The "little Latin and less Greek" variant, which Baldwin credits to typical schoolmasters, is probably reasonable, except when attributed to Jonson or the FF without calling it a paraphrase or the like.) I'm about to go around checking for refs, and changing the spelling as i go, at least until i find a contrary ref.
(I would be remiss if i failed to confess that the site i just cited uses, in the work's title,

1. "Shakespere's" in the boilerplate facsimile-like "framing" of the facsimile pages, tho
2. "Shakspere's" in the web-page title, matching
3. "Shakspere's" in the facsimile bare-title page (r1 of the "front matter") and
4. "Shakspere's" in the facsimile formal title page (r3 of the "front matter")

and that what i just called the "bare-title page" has as the last word of the (all-caps) title "Greek". (In point 3 just above (r1), i used normal mixed casing rather than all-caps that i found.) So i remain open to the argument that Baldwin and/or U of I Press can't be trusted! It may be that an HTML expert responsible for the "framing", obsessed with resisting the pull to put the final E on Shakespeare, never noticed they'd blown it on the internal E, and please note that the facsimile title page has the opposite use of italic and all-caps from the facsimile formal title page; as to the "bare-title page", it may be a page never included in the proof-reading galleys: created for the printers' convenience and thrown away as ugly when galleys were distributed, or even added when the copy eventually used for scanning was rebound at some point in the 5 or 6 decades prior to the scanning.)
Jerzy•t 22:09 & 23:03, 25 & 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. To save me looking into the detail of this, can you tell me whether (a) you HAVE MADE any fixes to the page you think are required by the above or (b) you think fixes SHOULD BE made in light of the above? AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. As to (a), i had no edits in the history of the accompanying article for weeks before the contrib in this section.
    As to (b), it still seems right to me as it is now.
    However, my reason for seeking comment here was that the response here seemed likely to be informative wherever versions of the phrase appear, and a 15-edit span within these 20 edits includes whatever i did to any of the relevant articles that i could find, including the Rdrs i created from versions (all or virtually all real!) of the phrase. If anyone messages me about one of the phrase-related edits in the next week, i'll mention it here; if it takes longer i may not give it enough attention, especially as Election Day gets closer.
    --Jerzy•t 23:32 & 23:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    

Bill Bryson Shakespeare

Bryson's view is that the 'Debate' started with Delia Bacon. While he has his POV same as any other in this issue, I cannot see what is considered the trigger to state that the debate started in the Early 18thC. Lucian Sunday (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've two thoughts in reply to that:
  • Much as I'm a huge fan of Bill Bryson, he is a popular writer with a journalistic style, as distinct from being a professional academic in his own right, so I'm inclined to think of his book more as a tertiary source than a secondary one, as we use those terms over at WP:RS. I wouldn't rule out sourcing facts from his work, but I think in most cases there will be somewhere better.
  • I'm not really inclined to embark on a debate about the nice construction of the word "debate". I feel sure the reader will understand the matter as debatable the moment someone expresses a view contrary to the mainstream one. Besides, your edit created a repetitive sentence and needed to be fixed somehow, so I think Smatprt's reversion was as good a fix as any. Now that there's been a little mini edit-war, can I suggest alternative versions get posted here for comment, rather than on the page. AndyJones (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

...Hmm and who exactly are this Edgar M. Glenn and George McMichael, who, nearly 50 years ago possibly (and possibly did not) provided this source? I am asking here who expressed a view contrary to the mainstream one in the early 18thC and, more importantly, who at that time, felt that they should not be ignored? I had fixed the style issue; where is the substance for the debate? Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Glenn & McMichael - academics and mainstream scholars who examined the case and its origins and published their findings. Might it be possible for you to request of a local library a copy so you can read the material yourself (since it appears you doubt the veracity of the edit)?Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I very much doubt the veracity.
Authorship Controversy This ...phenomenon ...began in obscurity with the Warwickshire cleric James Wilmot in 1785 (ref:Michael Dobson "Authorship Controversy" The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Michael Dobson and Stanley Wells. Oxford University Press, 2001).

I think the obscurity points to a lack of debate.

Where were Glenn & McMichael academics? I do not need to go to the library to see that were infact editors of a collection of other authors's works; I am not sure how this can be construed as publishing their findings. Who was the author at p56? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...I am glad you have found the (one of several) 18th century reference. Glenn and McMichael also mention it, although they found other references that Dobson and Wells missed, not surprising considering their condescending attitude towards the subject and there intentional ignorance of many relevant details. In any case... simply using the reference above, the authorship issue does indeed date to the 18th century, settling THAT issue. Regarding your wish to DEBATE whether the word DEBATE should be replaced with QUESTION, frankly I QUESTION whether that DEBATE is really a CONTROVERSY. I do recall that at one time we used the word CONTROVERSY, but after much DEBATE we settled the QUESTION by building a consensus around the use of DEBATE, which seemed to most the least POV, and settled the QUESTION.Smatprt (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So why not just take it out altogether? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have a dsicussion about this or just keep reverting. Lucian - you have reverted by 2 editors now and are ignoring a long, carefully built consensus on the phrasing of this lead. The porblem is, the reference you cited is in conflict with the earlier reference, and was POV. The reason is that "some scholars believe the debate was started in 1785 (your ref), some believe it started even earlier in the 18th century (the earlier reference), while some believe that is started in the 1590's (or so)with Groatworth of Wit. I think is impossible to put an exact date on the first debate about this subject, and because it appears that most researchers point to various 18th century references, that is why the consensus to say "18th century" was the best and most logical compromise. Feel free to research the archives of this page (endless as they may seem)to get an idea of the previous discussion. Believe me - it wasn't a snap decision on anyone's part. On the contrary, it was a well discussed and well thought out interchange between numerous editors. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Will also add that I believe "theory" would be incorrect as the quesiton itself is not really a theory. There are various theories attached to it (Oxfordian theory, Baconian theory, group theory, etc.), but these theories are all the result of the initial debate. I also agree with Andy above when he says "I feel sure the reader will understand the matter as debatable the moment someone expresses a view contrary to the mainstream one." I think he says it much clearer than I attempted to in my summary :) Smatprt (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR. Having taken due note of WP:DTTR, I've put three-revert-rule warnings on Smatprt's and Lucian's talk pages. See WP:3RR. Can you please thrash this out, here on the talk page? AndyJones (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that during the 24 hours on Sept 25-26 there were 3 reverts made to Lucian's edit - 2 by me and 1 by... Andy! Thanks for the template warning though (instead of a more appropriate personal message).

But, PS, don't let Smatprt get away with any of that "Dobson and Wells are POV" nonsense, unless he promises never again to cite Looney, Anderson, Stritmatter etc.  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Andy is correct of course - What I was trying to say is that Wells and Dobson's POV against even acknowledging that the debate has any merit makes it little wonder that they have not investigated it fully. As a result, they have missed what others scholars have found - in regards to references to when the debate may have been first raised. That they have the hutzpah to assign a single date as the definitive start to the question is, IMHO, laughable. Smatprt (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - I think it worth mentioning that Looney, Anderson, Stritmatter, etc., were effectively banned from the main William Shakespeare Article - even in the context of the Authorship, where their research credentials are undeniable. Just an example of the double standard applied by many editors of the Shakespeare project. Wells and Dobson are certainly not experts on the Authorship question, as evidenced by their sloppy/incomplete pronouncements about it, as influenced by their very obvious POV. That is why - on this page - we should look for references from scholars who have actually done significant research on the subject. Smatprt (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

sine qua non

Is the phrase sine qua non really too "highbrow Latin" for this article?--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Greetings. I think the feeling expressed on other Shakespeare pages is that the sprinkling of latin phrases is not helpful to younger readers or those without upper degree educations. It is my recollection other editors have expressed that for clarity sake, it's better to simply "say it in English". I would agree. Having said that, I think your subsequent edits to that line have solved the problem. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Kool 'n' the gang!--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, - re: the edit you last reverted -

"While numerous alternative candidates have been proposed, major claimants have included Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William Stanley (6th Earl of Derby) and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who is currently the most popular"

is the use of "while" correct? I believe that it means either a) during the same time as, or b) although. That's the reason I made the change. What do you think?--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• you are quite right! I recast the sentence to delete the "while", while keeping the original intent. Better?Smatprt (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, much better.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Format

After the title "Mainstream View" there is a huge empty space because of the graphic. Can someone correct this? Nadquilp7 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see this. Could it be a browser-specific issue? What browser, version and OS are you using? By the way, the insanely long caption on the image in the lede is… well, insane. Could someone better familiar with the article look into shortening it (drastically!) and keeping the information somewhere in the main body text instead (if it's not already there)? --Xover (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

1604 problem

I've deleted the '1604 problem' section of the article. It was superfluous and belonged in the Oxfordian theory article. To whoever's writing this article: don't use "See Oxfordian Theory". This isn't Britannica and no-one else on Wikipedia does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.138.141 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare vs. Shakspere?

In the section "Shakespeare vs Shakspere", it states that the article uses the term Shakespeare throughout. However, the article uses Shakspere elsewhere. What's the correct action here? 161.97.162.135 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Just to clarify my edits, a user above says that the 1604 case ahould not be included and I agree. It's specifically Oxfordian and belongs in the Oxfordian theory article. Also, the sentences about Oxford being the most popular seem to me to be unfitting of an encyclopedia. Let's keep up the standard! Torricelli01 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted. Deletion of long-standing sections of any article is severely frowned upon. Also - due to the sock puppets of Barry, it is highly suspect when someone comes along and makes identical edits to his or one of his puppets. Your edits were identical and even went so far as to remove Oxford material from the lead, which was created by consensus. Even the most rabid Stratfordians agree that Oxford is be far the leading and most popular alternative candidate. Just because Baconians and others don't agree is no reason to delete that fact - especially when it is so well sourced. Ditto with the 1604 issue. Regardless of which candidate it may apply to, the fact remains that it is an extremely strong authorship issue. After all, if "the author" was dead by 1604, then that certainly hurts the standard attribution.Smatprt (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What if several editors agree about 1604? Would you still revert it? That the section is long-standing surely is not the point. It is whether or not the article is POV. Whether or not Oxford is popular surely isn't the point either. The article is not there to court readers through poularity - it's there to tell them about all sides of the argument. I also think thi sarticle needs a substantial rewrite. The Stratford guy looks like he's the minority candidate here whereas everyone knows he isn't. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.41.95 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Several editors? Or just several socks of the same editor? Because that is what is going on this talk page and in the article. A consensus of sock puppets is not a consensus - it's just plain deception by one frustrated and angry person. But to your points, if the article is here to tell readers "all sides of the argument", then they should certainly tell the reader who the leading alternate candidate is. That seems fairly obvious. Equally obvious is the point that if an argument against the standard attribution exists, such as the possibility that the author was deceased prior to the date that Shakespeare of Stratford died, then that issue should be at least mentioned.Smatprt (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ambiguous intro

The introductory passage states: "The most popular theory of the 20th century was that Shakespeare's works were written by Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford)."

This is untrue. The most popular theory of the 20th century was that Shakespeare's works were written by Shakespeare. Can the wording to be changed to clarify the intended message (that "the most popular alternate-author theory" etc.)? 74.232.78.35 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Smatprt (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Shakespeare Theory

Is there a theory that the Stratford Shakespeare wrote some of the works while others wrote some of the other works (sort of a middle ground position)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare was Irish

There's a fascinating new book now available on Google Books entitled Shakespeare was Irish. It can be found here. The book argues that William Nugent (mentioned in this article already) was William Shakespeare. In this argument the author is building on the earlier research, and book, by Elizabeth Hickey in the 1970s. The really interesting thing about it, however, is that the author has an impressive grasp of the contemporary historical sources, and references them accordingly. Worth reading if you're into this. Dunlavin Green (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Marlovian, it's up to you to summarize the arguments for and against, and include it in the main article, with (of course) a full reference, begorra! --Wally Tharg (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Doggerel on the grave

I'm only adding this comment because it's not always polite to add the {{who}} tag without explanation. I'm asking for a source for "Authorship doubters also point to the doggerel written on Shakespeare's grave, which reads..." etc, etc. Presumably this was written after Shakespeare's death? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded slightly, with ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Example in "The idea of secret authorship in Renaissance England"

According to Robert Zaller, cited as a source, it was only the preface to John Hayward's work, and not the history itself, where the authorship was in question. [1] --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Preface" added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke section

This section has had numerous cite tags for months now. It all appears to come from one book, but even that is hard to ascertain. If references are not forthcoming, the section should probably go, and a small summary added to the "other candidate" section. Smatprt (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare's literacy

Under this heading, the article currently states "Not one surviving letter, to or from Shakespeare, is known to exist". Whilst there are no letters from Shakespeare, there is a letter to him from Richard Quiney in 1598 requesting a loan of £30. This does not, of course, affect the Anti-Stratfordian position but, as it stands, this statement in the article is incorrect. I suggest changing this sentence to read "Not one surviving letter from Shakespeare is known to exist" --Prh47bridge (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Edit made. Thanks Smatprt (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, to me, the formulation “Not one …” sounds polemical; simply using “No …” (and changing the sentence to be plural) would, in my opinion, sound more neutral. Might be worth considering (but I haven't looked at it closely enough to even elevate this to “suggestion”, merely an “observation”. ;D). --Xover (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Digges and the monument

Reference this edit: it was antiquarian William Dugdale, a "poor draughtsman", who made the drawing of the Stratford monument engraved by Hollar, not poet Leonard Digges, who alluded to it in the first folio. As Schoenbaum points out, it "misrepresents the object, in keeping with the liberty of seventeenth-century engraving". The pen was, and is, a "removable accessory". Motes and beams! --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - Dugdale - not Diggs. My bad! Please also reference Nicholas Rowes version in 1709. Still no pen, no paper, etc. For anyone to say that the pen was "removable" is immaterial, as that is simply someone's intrepretation, and we have two historic engravings that clearly show no paper either. In this, Rowe confirms Dugdale. Both earlier engravings clearly represent a man holding onto a sack, as a grain-merchant might have appeared. The post-1709 alteration of the monument changed the sack into a pillow, changed the arm structure and added the pen. The images are now in the article for everyone to see and make up their own mind.

Vertue's sketch and print of the monument of 1737 both show the pen and paper, before John Hall's restoration of 1749. Hall's work was overseen by local antiquary Joseph Greene, who reported that the statue was of a single piece of limestone and that during the work "nothing was added to or diminished". Schoenbaum examined the monument, out of its niche, in 1973 and reports that "no amount of restoration" could have transformed a wool-sack, with hands resting on it, to the pen-and-paper version we have now: his conclusion was carelessness by Dugdale, copied by Hollar and then Rowe's engraver. This doesn't help us draw any firm conclusion to put in the article, of course, but perhaps Vertue's picture, possibly with the reports from Greene and Schoenbaum, could go in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Added examinations (briefly) and Vertue, but not the drawing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication history of Shakespeare's works

The diagram showing the publication history of Shakespeare's plays says "continuous publication stopped in 1603 before a 5-year gap". This is not true. There was 'Hamlet' Q2 (1604-5), '1 Henry 4' Q4 (1604; sometimes called Q3 by those who number the first edition Q0), and 'Richard 3' Q4 (1605). I think what the author means is that no first editions appeared in 1604-7, only reprints. But even this isn't right, since Q2 'Hamlet' is not really a reprint of Q1 but a distinct play. The other alleged gap of 13 years from 1609 to 1622 is also wrong: there was 'Hamlet' Q3 (1611), 'Titus Andronicus' Q3 (1611), 'Richard 3' Q5 (1612), '1 Henry 4' Q6 (1613), 'Richard 2' Q5 (1615), 'King Lear' Q2 (1619), and 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' Q2 (1619). There was no 1622 'King John' but there was a 1622 'Othello'. There was no 'The Two Noble Kinsmen' in 1637 but there was one in 1634. The above publications can all be verified using the British Library's online English Short Title Catalogue (ESTC). Gabriel Egan, Reader in Shakespeare Studies, Loughborough University 86.146.28.231 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source, and what was supposed to have been represented was that no "new" Shakespeare works were published. I will make the appropriate change to the article. Smatprt (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's drop the word "Note"

Currently, the final paragraph of the introductory section begins:

"Note: For the purposes of this article ..."

I propose that we drop "Note:" and simply state:

"For the purposes of this article ..."

At best, "Note:" draws attention to the fact that this sentence is meta-information about the article. But "For purposes of this article" is already the clearest possible statement of this fact, making "Note:" redundant (and hence annoying, at least to my eye).

Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

agree, its redundant.Smatprt (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Update on redating of The Tempest

A recent attempt by Oxfordian researchers (Stritmatter, R., and Kositsky, L., "Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited", Rev. Eng. Studies, 58 (2007), pp.447-72) to undermine the 1610 dating of The Tempest has been found to be in error, particularly in charging William Strachey with plagiarism (Vaughan, A.T., "William Strachey's True Reportory and Shakespeare: A Closer Look at the Evidence", Shakespeare Quarterly 59 (Fall 2008), 245-273). Stritmatter and Kositsky argue that William Strachey's letter the True Reportory (widely seen as a main source for The Tempest) reached England later than 1610 and so was too late to source the play. They claim that any parallel that is found between the True Reportory and any of the following documents necessarily implies that Strachey copied from it and so his letter post-dates it: Jourdain's "A Discovery of the Bermudas" (1610); Smith's "Map of Virginia" (1612); and Strachey's "The History of Travaille" (1612). Vaughan has countered by showing that "The History of Travaille" actually post-dates the True Reportory because the former refers to "our most royal deceased prince" whereas the latter states "in honour of our young prince" who is evidently still alive. The former also gives an up-to-date version of the Lord De La Warr's sending the Indian king's son into England. The True Reportory has an inexact version of events (because the letter had already been finished) when De La Warr was about to set sail for England on 15 July 1610. It assumes incorrectly that it was Captain Adams (whereas it was Captain Newport) who brought the three Indians to Point Comfort before De La Warr's departure. It also states that the king's son was sent to England failing to report that the king and his son were actually released and a nephew left behind as insurance. The nephew escaped and neither the king nor his son returned. So none of them went to England. This inaccurate version of Lord De La Warr's departure by the True Reportory means that the letter was not available to be updated, in other words, it was sealed and ready to be sent in July 1610. There are other points in Vaughan's paper but Stritmatter and Kositsky cannot sustain their argument for invalidating the Strachey letter as a main source. (WellStanley (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

This good faith addition really belongs in the Oxfordian Theory and Tempest articles. This article is limited to providing a summary of each candidate. Side topics such as The Tempest dating, along with further detail on both sides of that argument need more space than is appropriate here. Otherwise, the various sub-sections would get terribly long and complicated. I've removed the addition and am looking at the other articles for the best place to insert this information (which I agree, should be included in the appropriate articles). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that, as I understand it, the crux of the argument is really whether or not The Tempest relies implicitly on Strachey, or, as Oxfordians propose, whether the same imagery and word parallels can be found in Erasmus's Naufragium (1523) and/or Richard Eden's 1555 translation of Peter Martyr's De orbo novo (1530). As far as I know, the Vaughan paper falls short on making this a definitive proof in favor of Strachey over the other (earlier) sources. These earlier sources, btw, were advanced by mainstream scholars before anyone ever even heard of the Oxford candidacy. Smatprt (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprised at the speed with which my addition to the Shakespeare authorship article was removed. It's a perfectly valid fully-referenced short counter argument, which all the other candidates have, it's justified on the Talk Page, and I can see no reasonable grounds for it's removal. Please either cite which Wikipedia rule entitles you to delete it or kindly restore it. Thank you. (WellStanley (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry about the speed - I just happened to catch it right after you posted it. As is stated in the editor notes below each candidate, these are simply summaries of the major candidates. The instructions say to please not add detail to these summaries, but instead, add detail to the main articles. The problem is, if we add this detail, then for it to make any sense, we'll need to add background on The Tempest dating arguments, detail about the Stritmatter/Kositsky paper which your entry does not cover, the various counter arguments, and the early (mainstream) scholars that supported Eden and Erasmus as most likely sources. All this detail on one side-topic goes beyond the "summary" concept. Does that make sense? (I didn't create this summary format, but I have tried to live within it). Be assured, no offense was intended. BTW - the Vaughan challenge was reported on The Tempest page already, and I have now included it on the Oxford Theory page. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we have equal rank here. With that in mind, I'm asking you to compromise in allowing this important objection into the article somewhere. Since it is a dating issue then I think the "1604 problem" seems appropriate. I ask to put it in THIS article not to put it elsewhere. (WellStanley (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

I think that is reasonable. I added further information as well, to give equal weight to both sides of the debate, and to connect the information together in a way that flows and makes sense. Please note, that due to objections by other editors, this section was only "allowed" in the article by not labling the researchers as "Oxfordians", but simply as "authorship researchers". The feeling was that this is a general article on the overall subject, and not an "Oxfordian" article. Anyhow, please have a look and let me know what you think. One question though - accepting that the charge of plagiarism is in error, I don't quite understand how this solves the debate over whether The Tempest was just as likely to draw from Erasmus and/or Eden, as it was from Strachey. To repeat what I wrote above, I am not aware of any conclusive proof that Strachey was the definitive source for the words and imagery found in The Tempest. Sure, there are plenty of "opinions" floating around, but they are only opinions - we can't state them as "facts". Smatprt (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the claim that "Stritmatter and Kositsky cannot sustain their argument for invalidating the Strachey letter as a main source" is a premature judgment, in view of the fact that their 12,000 word rebutal to Dr. Vaughan has not yet been published. This rebutal shows in detail why the logic (if one can even call it that) of Vaughan's article does not warrant WellStanley's summary. To pick just one point, Stritmatter and Kositsky's argument for Strachey's plagiaristic habits does not rest on their arguments or authority, but is amply testimonied in the critical literature they cite -- a point that Vaughan attempted to confuse in his confusing rebuttal. Vaughan's article, in fact, depends on a number of significant misconceptions which neither fact nor logic can validate. He claims, for instance, that Edmund Malone was one of the founders of the modern theory of Strachey's influence on Strachey. But Malone had never even heard of Strachey, and in fact believed that Shakespeare's primary source was Jourdain's 1610 pamphlet. Such basic errors cast doubt on the entire credibility of Vaughan's argument, but the full extent of his errors and misconceptions cannot be detailed in this venue. It would be an error for Wikipedia to follow WellStanley's premature judgment in this case before the entire case has been thoroughly aired in public. WellStanley might wish to consult, for example, Stritmatter and Kositsky's most recent publication on The Tempest, published in the Fall 2009 issue of Critical Survey. The article shows in copious detail why Eden, a historically deprecated or ignored source, constitutes a second proof that Strachey did not need to (and indeed could not have) relied on Strachey for the new world imagery of Tempest. And, if WellStanley believes in the "marketplace of ideas," I hope that he will join me in urging that Stritmatter and Kositsky's response to Dr. Vaughan be published in an appropriate venue, rather than stonewalled by the Shakespeare industry.--BenJonson (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article I mentioned is now available online, here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

I deleted the images of the signatures as they don't seem to be a debating point as it relates to this article. If someone disagrees, feel free to restore the image, but if so, we need a section that actually discusses what the image is supposed to represent (in terms of the debate). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

The recent move of the bust drawings has a valid reason in its edit summary, but WP:IMAGE#Image choice and placement suggests that in "articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text (my italics). The images are discussed directly, and at some length, in "Criticism of mainstream view" and it seems sensible to keep them there.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But the same problem exists for the frontispiece image, which is also discussed in the Folio section later in the article (which is where I moved it). I have no problem whatsoever moving the Bust drawings back to their position near the relevant text, but that would leave us without a lead image. Any suggestions as to what would be an appropriate lead image for this article? We could also use the Sonnet images, but they too are discussed in the text...Smatprt (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the bust images down and inserted a freely licensed illustrative image into the lead. Not sure if I'm happy with it, but it can be a placeholder until a better image comes along. Suggestions?Smatprt (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I really look forward to the early replacement of the placeholder image. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Any suggestions as to an appropriate lead image? Some of my thoughts are: A photo of Mark Rylance in his "I Am Shakespeare" production, a photo of one of the more prominent doubters like Mark Twain (although that might look odd at first glance), A book jacket image from one of the authorship books referenced in the article, or a photo of some news event like Derek Jacobi announcing his support for the authorship petition. Frankly, none of those really do it for me, but at least this list might generate a better idea! Smatprt (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the book cover as a much-needed replacement, no complaints. Its use here could be stretching the WP:FUG a bit, though.--Old Moonraker (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bohemian coast

I deleted the unreferenced sentence "A more likely explanation is the fact that the same geographical mistake was already present in Shakespeare's source, Robert Greene's Pandosto, and the play merely reproduced it." The problem is that in Greene's work Fawnia is wrecked on the coast of Sicilia. Assuming Pandosto as the source, Shakespeare reversed both the royal houses (The part of Pandosto of Bohemia is taken by Leontes of Sicily, that of Egistus of Sicily by Polixenes of Bohemia) and the location of the ship wrecks. This from the introduction to Greene's 'Pandosto' or 'Dorastus and Fawnia' : being the original of Shakespeare's 'Winter's tale'[3]. I haven't actually read the book, so correct me if I misinterpreted the introduction. Afasmit (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Slipped in a "geopolitical" explanation for the reversal, taken from Jonathan Bate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition.Smatprt (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the text a bit, mostly since Moonraker has now added his additional material to the The Winter's Tale article as well. Odd stuff: the future son in law of James (Frederick V, Elector Palatine), before whose wedding The Winter Tale was performed, came to be known as the Winter King (!) for his short rule of Bohemia, and then only as "antiking". However, Frederick was no family of Rudolph, king of Bohemia, and according to the wikipedia article, James "opposed his takeover of Bohemia from the Habsburgs". However, that is unsourced, so who knows. Take the "Shakespeare copied the Bohemian coast from his source" situation here. Someone’s wild assumption added in September 2006 to The Winter’s Tale [4] survives scrutiny for over 3 years, in the meantime spreading to articles like this as a certainty. Afasmit (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Um.. are you sure about your facts here? Here is a quote from The Tudor Shakespeare that seems to be in conflict with your assertion:

"And these fundamental changes are the more noticeable because Shakespeare clings to his original in many matters of detail. The Shepherd, when he finds the little Perdita, is looking for the sheep that in the play, as in the story, are by the seaside, browsing on ivy. Though the kingdoms of Bohemia and Sicily are interchanged, Bohemia still keeps its apocryphal seacoast; and Delphos remains an island."

By this logic, it appears that Shakespeare did, in fact, copy the "seacoast" bit from the original source, yes? Smatprt (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "correcting me if I misinterpreted the introduction";-) Pity you didn't catch me earlier though.... So Fawnia/Perdita is wrecked and found on the coast of Sicilia instead of Bohemia, but in one of the many chunks of text absent from this source (thereby escaping my search for "coast", grrr) Greene did write elsewhere "and the Mariners descryed the coast of Bohemia" [5]. Bother. Well, do what you feel best; the text might be okay, but this source makes it basically a non-item. I'm surprised that people have focussed on the Bohemian coast and not on the even less explicable "Isle of Delphi". You'd think Shakespeare knew Oedipus Rex. The topological fantasies here (as may be putting harbors in Milan and Verona etc.) seem quite intentional and not reflecting, one way or the other, on Shakespeare's geographical knowledge. I'm sure there is a quotable source for that opinion somewhere. Afasmit (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like I caught it pretty quick - after all, less than 72 hours went by. Perhaps if you wait a few days after posting a request for comments (especially when it comes to deleting long-standing material), this kind of thing could be avoided? Just a thought. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Kreiler

The following paragraph has been removed from the Wikipedia article:

In his recent, well-researched study, Kurt Kreiler builds a mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of the fact that Edward de Vere, whose works and letters show a strong Shakespearean style and whose nickname at court was "Spear-shaker," was the real Shakespeare. Only the Earl of Oxford had a wide-ranging knowledge of the upper classes — in contrast to the lowly born actor, William Shakespeare, who could not have written such fine plays as The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. Furthermore, most conclusive evidence shows that it was well known at the court of Elizabeth I that the Earl of Oxford has produced the plays known under the name of Shakespeare. The German Shakespeare expert, Walter Klier says about Kreiler’s 595-page study, which was published in November 2009, “An enormous amount of research has been invested in this fluent, well-written biography, offering a cornucopia of new facts and new insights.” An English translation of the book will appear in 2010.

This seems to be WP:UNDUE. Kreiler's reliability has been doubted at Talk:William Shakespeare#Untranslated book/article about authorship and the whole of the addition removed from that article. I suggest the same here. We could look at it again when the English version appears. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In view of the conclusions here, deleting as WP:SOAP. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So Kreiler's reliability has been doubted by one or two Wikipedians. Very poor argument. Has the author’s reliability been doubted by Shakespearean scholars? No, it hasn’t. Shakespeare expert Walter Klier says, “An enormous amount of research has been invested in this fluent, well-written biography, offering a cornucopia of new facts and new insights.” Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there are several issues at play here that make this addition problematic: 1) This entry does not really add anything new to the article. 2) The same kudos being showered on Kreiler were also said about Anderson's book and Ogburn's book. What makes this one notable? 3) The addition seems to be copied (word for word in some cases) from the reference, and contains WP:Peacock words and other non-encyclopedic elements. 4)This is a general article about the authorship debate as a whole - not an article about Oxford's claim. The proposed addition is simply too much about a single candidate.

My question to Wikiwiserick is - do you have this book and can you site some of these "new facts"? If they are indeed new, then there might be a place for them on these pages. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book. However, here is an English review of Kreiler's study: [6]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks quite interesting. Once more English reviews come out, or once the book comes out in English, perhaps something will be appropriate for this page. In the meantime, maybe something can be added to the Oxfordian theory article. I'll take a look shortly at that article and feel free to suggest something on the talk page there. Smatprt (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading the English review by Walter Klier, I found a useful quote that helps provide some context to the final lines of the Oxford section. Here is the diff: [[7]]. I hope you find it sufficient for now and will look to the Oxfordian Theory page for other possibilities. I'll head there now. Smatprt (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing from Brief Lives

As User:Smatprt notes in his recent addition, the quote is very relevant to a topic already aired. However, on formatting the new ref I saw that the publisher of this new online journal is The Shakespeare Fellowship, an acknowledged proponent of the Oxfordian theory ("Shakespeare was a state secret") and proud inheritor to George Greenwood and J. Thomas Looney. My question is, is this a reliable source from which to quote? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had numerous discussions about this and have even heard from the RS board regarding Fellowship publications. The feeling was that these publications can be used in "limited circumstances". Generally not on the main William Shakespeare page, for example, where better sources are typically available. But on Authorship pages they are appropriate - thus Ogburn, Anderson, Fowler, etc, are acknowledged experts in that particular field (a field where Wells, etc., are NOT acknowledged experts and and have NOT done extensive research, as they readily admit). Regardless, "Brief Lives" is a peer-reviewed journal with oversight by experts in the field of English Lit and/or Authorship studies, so is perfectly appropriate for Authorship articles. Here is a link to the Editorial Board of Brief Chronicles [[8]]. Once there, you can click on each name to get their credentials. If you still have qualms, we can go back to the RS Board for their input (again). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find this using the WP:RS/N search facility. Anybody help me out? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancel my last: there was a brief outage of the whole search facility on en:Wikipedia at the time. I've only just now realised why I needed to use Google search, rather than WP search, to start the new page "Inspector Whicher" yesterday morning. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I have read the earlier discussion I have no absolutely no appetite for returning to that forum. There didn't seem to be any conclusion, with some contributors confidently rejecting the group as a source: "I don't think it was necessary to ask this here—since this is an unreliable source according to our policies" and deploring yet another assault on "Wikipedia's defences" from the "fringe theory industry". Others acknowledged that, although it is a self-published source, the reputation of some contributors in the field might allow its use in limited circumstances. Further views (perhaps beyond those of the usual suspects) still requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonraker, you are right not to want to return to that former and highly prejudicial discussion. For the record, I have never attempted to hide my identity on wikipedia. To supplement Paul B's astounding description of me in that thread, let me add that I am an Associate Professor of Humanities at Coppin State University, who has published more than 16 peer reviewed articles on Shakespearean and early modern topics in a wide range of journals in that field. The categorical denunciation of me as someone who is an advocate of a "fringe" point of merely shows the the wiki editors in question have no business editing this page, as Smrtprt has suggested, since their primary attempted contribution seems to be an ad hominem one. The landscape of authorship discourse is changing rapidly, and major players are being forced to revise their opinions based on new evidence. See, for example, this notice of a recent "Oxfordian" statement by Graham Holderness: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2009/12/08/holderness-shakespeares-biography-is-that-of-the-earl-of-oxford/. --BenJonson (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Greville and Nugent sections

I finally removed the long-tagged Greville section and replaced it with a summary in the Other Candidate section. It has been fact tagged for 9 months with no references. As he has never been characterized as a major claimant, the long unreferenced section seemed uncalled for. As to the newly added Nugent section, much of it was OR, with the remainder being referenced sections of historical incidents that were weakly tied to the Authorship debate. It all seemed to boil down to only one recent source. Again, Nugent has not been characterized as a major candidate by any RS that I am aware of, certainly any provided in the section. As with the Greville material, I summarized the material and included it in the Other Candidate section. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move. The Greville theory was stillborn to begin with and is fraught with irreconcilable contradictions. --BenJonson (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence in poems and plays section

I've added the "to have is to have" section of "As You Like It" as a typical bit of evidence quoted from the plays, mostly because it is so often quoted and seems a particularly odd scene to explain in a traditional fashion. Hopefully it will survive the experts' scrutiny. It certainly can use some more references. For example, I could only find it mentioned in (much) Oxfordian literature, but the "you're not it, William" quote seems general enough to fit in any anti-Stratfordian text. Perhaps someone can find such texts. Afasmit (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the section is just too complex for an introductory article such as this. I tried to clean it up a bit, but the problem is, it just isn't "evidence" - it's all just interpretation of a fictional work (unlike the sonnets, where advocates from both sides have made good cases for there being non-fiction). Perhaps stuff like this would be better in a new article? But even then, it would need to be a lot more balanced, properly addressing both sides of the debate, or it's going to violate POV. Smatprt (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smatprt, I admire your levelheadedness on this subject considering the vitriol sent your way from one and the eagerness to overinterpret from the other site. However, in your edits last night you reverted what I consider a correction of clear overinterpretation (in an "I'll read this first" legend for that) and deleted what I tried to make a level introduction of a really queer passage that seems standard fodder for authorship questions.

You've reintroduced the sentence "Shakespeare's Stratford Bust, as it was altered sometime after 1709.", which somehow had survived editors like Old Moonraker (a Wiltshire native perhaps?). Perhaps there is an older discussion, but I haven't read any clear evidence that (like the 1739 Grignion engraving) the 1709 engraving could not be copied after the 1656 one. Given the shotty draft by Dugdale, the argument for errors (and the frequently stolen pen) seems reasonable enough not to be able to state "as it was altered" and certainly not to say "after 1709". And yes, I'm on your site.

Good points - I'll try an edit to address this point, without introducing conjecture. Smatprt (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the introduction of William of Stratford in a play (as acknowledged by both sites) seems a very relevant event, especially as he gets told off and "can't lay claim" to something that is not his. I don't know if there are other times the actor William shows up in Shakespeare's plays, but, to a rank amateur, this occasion seems momentous. Afasmit (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the "can't lay claim to something that is not his" is strictly interpretive and, as such, can't really be called "evidence" of anything. Stating that Audrey represents the plays, and Touchstone the playwright is certainly convenient, but (again) - it's not a fact and not "evidence". Perhaps the best place for this would be at this article, under the "As You Like It" section: [[9]]

Thanks, it would be nice to put it somewhere as it took a bit of work and some sleuthing to find the early references. It isn't purely Oxfordian though. As far as I could find, a Baconian was the first person to discuss it in detail (in 1910). Afasmit (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had overlooked the recent edit regarding "altered sometime after 1709": I thought it was just being moved around the page. Not presuming to speak for User:Smatprt, but I believe that there was agreement (or, at worst, a stalemate) on the text regarding the funerary monument. The caption change introduced material not in the text. Slightly off-topic, may I ask what is meant by "editors like Old Moonraker"? I try to achieve neutrality and balance with my edits (which are on a very small scale compared with the major contributors here), but if I lapse from this standard, please point out plainly so I may amend. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add that Old Moonraker has indeed shown neutrality and balance with his/her edits for many years now and this has been greatly appreciated!Smatprt (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

With "editors like Old Moonraker" I innocently meant "editors who generally prevent the text balancing too far to the anti-Stratfordian point of view". Did I get your home county right? Afasmit (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Thanks for the endorsements, but the sentiments still apply: if I slip from neutrality, please point it out. And yes, I am an old Moonraker. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vertue statement - delete?

This statement:(Vertue's 1719 rendition of the monument, made before he had actually visited the church, appeared in Pope's 1725 edition of the Complete Works. It was an impression, sourced from the "Chandos portrait".[16]) does not ring true. If Vertue did not visit the church apparently someone did, because his engraving corresponds almost exactly with the current state of the monument, including the pen and paper. You can see it at http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespearemonument.htm. Unless someone gives some contrary evidence, I plan to delete the sentence. Tom Reedy(talk) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the proposed deletion. If I recall correctly, it was added by Old Moonraker. It would probably be considerate to ask him/her the reasoning behind the original edit.Smatprt (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Strengthened the refs for "Vertue's 1719 rendition of the monument". Thanks, User:Smatprt, for the "heads up" on my talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonraker, you're missing my point. If you look at the Vertue engraving of 1723 (not 1725), you will see that a pen is included. That's 14 years before you say the first rendition of a pen occurred. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I did. I have a small image of the 1723 sketch Vertue made in the church, which seems to have the pen, but not the 1725 engraving. I need to upload the image and revise the date backwards. The statement about the 1719 engraving then loses some of its relevance and could, after all, go. Not tonight.--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at this image: http://imgur.com/U0Gve. This is the George Vertue engraving of the monument (there were two Shakespeare engravings by Vertue in the edition) inserted in Rowe's biography following Pope's preface in his 1725 edition (which was really printed in 1723, but not released until 1725). It clearly shows the pan and paper of the monument. In addition, the rest of the monument (except for the actual portrait, which is taken from the Chandos) is exactly like the monument is today. Just FYI, here's Vertue's 1737 sketch: http://i.imgur.com/BOI6d.jpg (click on the image to enlarge it). As you can see, "sketchy" is the correct word, as it is very impressionistic.

Two things:

1. Either Vertue or someone else had visited Stratford to get the monument details before 1723, but we don't know if Vertue went or if someone else did. I see nothing in either of your citations that says Vertue did not visit the church before 1737.

2. Since the engraving clearly shows the pen and paper, the earliest record of the pen is 1723, not 1737.

So it is clearly incorrect to say “the earliest record of the pen . . . dates from a drawing made in October 1737” and also incorrect to say “made before he had actually visited the church,” because in the second instance we just don’t know.

I also have a problem with your use of Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel as a reference. I know of no reputable scholar who accepts her assertions. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom: thanks for your visit to my talk page. You may have gathered from the eclectic range of topics there that I am more of a Wikipedian than a Shakespearean (to reverse your self-description from earlier today) so for this reason, and to extract myself from a growing state of confusion over the various dates, I am happy to withdraw my objection to your proposals. Just two things: the 1723 / 1725 image you identify above would do well in the article, and Walpole's Life of George Vertue records only one visit to Stratford, in 1737, indicating, but of course not disproving, that Vertue hadn't seen it for himself at that time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, OM. I got the image from Clark, and there's no telling where he got it from, but I'm sure it's in the public domain. I don't know how to upload images so if you want to use it have at it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shorten Page, Improve Credibility?

I find the language of this page, particularly the introductory paragraph, elevates this idea above its merit. It's a flakey marginal 'conspiracy theory'. It's up to the page's author/s to reasonably demonstrate why this idea deserves, or needs to be, taken seriously. From the page's content, I see no evidence to support this. Count Spockula (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag you added. The entire sentence is referenced at the end of the sentence. In fact, this article has an incredible number of references, cites, notes, etc. The list of notable adherents - from Mark Twain, to half the Supreme Court, makes the issue far from "flakey" and demonstrates why the issue is, indeed, taken seriously by many researchers, academics, and professionals.Smatprt (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

-

Dear "Count," if one may inquire -- on what do you base this extraordinary opinion? Are you aware, for example that University of Hertfordshire Shakespeare professor Graham Holderness, in a Nov. 28 Globe Theatre symposium on authorship, made the following statement:

If you were to construct a biography which ticked all the boxes – if you were to read Shakespeare’s plays and infer a biography from it – it wouldn’t be Rowe’s, it would actually be the Earl of Oxford’s.

I would guess not. You seem to be the sort of person who shoots from the hip and asks questions after.

Details of the Holderness comment are here:http://shakespeareoxfordsociety.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/sat-trustee-julia-cleave-reports-on-shakespeare-bio-conference-at-the-globe/

Having studied the authorship question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now, I assure you that the subject deserves every bit of "credibility" that the wiki entry confers on it. Can the article be improved? No doubt. But not by someone who barges in with that kind of attitude. --BenJonson (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How you may waste your personal time is irrelevant, as is your assurance. No wonder Wikipedia has credibility issues. This is is not a place for your pet conspiracy theories. If you want to make outrageous or unsupportable statements, it is your responsibility to correct it, back it up or move aside.Count Spockula (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, it's impossible for "half the Supreme Court" to have an opinion, as it consists of nine people. -Dhodges (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Incredible number of references" etc. is peacock writing. The New York Public Library Desktop Reference makes no mention of this controversy in the Shakespeare section. I think this article is a candidate for rewrite, scale-down, or deletion. It is not a serious topic of discussion despite celebrity endorsements by Mark Twain, Derek Jacobi or others. Serious literary researchers and authorities do not give this topic any credibility. Allow me to quote from the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (p. 31), ". . . critics have wondered why it should be so much easier to get into print with bizarre untruths about Shakespeare than with anything else . . . any theory suggesting that the theatre professional William Shakespeare did not write the Shakespeare canon somehow has to explain why so many of his contemporaries said that he did . . . and why none of the rest said that he did not." The article makes poor use of printed references. It is weakly researched, badly written, and far too POV. We can work collectively to improve it, or you can doggedly stick to your guns. But you won't win. There's too much established literary criticism against you.Count Spockula (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

First, talk pages are full of peacock terms. Your own "flakey marginal conspiracy theory" is a perfect example. Stop throwing stones from inside your own glass house. Second, the NYPLD makes numerous mentions of the Authorship issue, as well as the Oxfordian theory - so again, don't make outlandish claims - they are easily disproved and make you look foolish. Pronouncing from on high that the issue is "not a serious topic of discussion" is also a ridiculous assertion, especially considering the number of academics that take part in these discussions - it's even taught at several institutions of higher learning. Your own editing history makes one wonder if you are truly editing in good faith, or have created an account for other purposes. Regardless, you are either terribly misinformed, or have your own hidden agenda.Smatprt (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Count Spokula has firmly established how the wiki article will be "improved." It will be improved by starting off with outrageous ad hominems, followed by mistatements of fact, ending with an appeal to "established literary criticism" -- whatever that is supposed to mean. --BenJonson (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not a more balanced article is coming out of this. I don't want an article insisting it's false, I want an article that shows both sides, and doesn't pick a side. As it stand you are clearly on the flakey conspiracy side. If I start adding references like the Oxford guide I certainly hope that will be respected.Count Spockula (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree this article needs balance. The depiction of the mainstream scholarly view is a caricature of the evidence. Maybe I can recruit some editors who can help bring it up to at least an average standard of balance. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Then can we agree this article needs a header flag reflecting this problem?Count Spockula (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't even know what a header flag is. I'm not a Wikipedian; I'm a Shakespearean. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have a problem with this edit,[[10]] however, as I believe it is misleading. The article states "Shakespeare of Stratford is further identified by the following evidence: He and the author of the works, "William Shakespeare," share a similar name..." to which you added "his fellow actors identified him in the prefatory material to the First Folio, playwright and friend Ben Jonson identified him as the playwright in several poems and personal writings; official records and contemporary historians identified him as the playwright". The problem is that these statements did not say "Shakespeare of Stratford". If they did, that would indeed be an important bit of "evidence". But they say merely "Shakespeare". What I believe is controversial is that you sandwiched these additions between two known facts about the "Stratford" man - the placement and phrasing of which leads the reader to believe that "Shakespeare of Stratford" is clearly identified as such in the examples you gave. I know what you are intending to say, and I would be happy to work with you to phrase this information correctly. What you need to say is something along the lines of the statements about the Swan of Avon and the Stratford Monument - that mainstream scholars believe these statements refer to the Stratford man. The same can be said about the additions you wish to make. Of course, a corresponding statement should then be added to the Criticism of the Mainstream View section, which should say that Authorship Doubters point out that these statements refer only to a "Shakespeare" and do not explicitly identify the Stratford man. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Stephen, the examples I gave do explicitly ID the writer as Shakespeare of Stratford, because they identify him as Master Shakespeare, the title he was allowed as a result of his father's grant of arms. Camden Baker identifies him as the stage actor, and Howes identifies him as the person with the title of gentleman, which is only the Stratford man. I was going to add the refs today, but now I'll have to rewrite it all over again.Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But that is simply not the same as identifying him as explicitly and exclusively THE man from Stratford. After all, there are many candidates, and some of them, no doubt, had the title of gentleman. As with most things Shakespeare, the best you can do is state the argument, and then explain that "this or that Scholar believes such and such for the following reasons."Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But yes it is. There was only one William Shakespeare with that title, and it was the actor from Stratford. That's pretty explicit. Whether any of the other candidates had the same title is irrelevant, because the references clearly state the man was Master William Shakespeare.Tom Reedy (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And saying he had a similar name is misleading, because you well know spelling was in flux at the time, and several written and printed references to the playwright are spelled as Shakspere, etc. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So what would you suggest to address this - we can't really say it's the same exact name for the precise reason you give - spelling was in flux so who is to know how his name was really spelled or pronounced?Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link is not "he had a similar name," it's "William Shakespeare's name is attached to the plays and the poems as the author." Since authorship challengers say he was a front anyway, why possible difference does it make to plainly say the fact that his name is on the works? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Tom. I certainly don't speak for all doubters, but if we can all agree that most doubters believe Shakspere was a front man, then this section would be a lot easier to clean up. Putting his name on the works would be an obvious step in creating such a front man because, as BenJonson notes, it would certainly give the perception (true or not) that he was indeed the author. In an attempt to (begin to) deal with this issue, I have moved the terminology section up to before the overview with the hope of mentioning the spelling issue and then moving on. Tom - does that work for you?Smatprt (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To say that "*his* name is on the works" is circular, begging the question, as you know. However, it may well be that the entry can be improved along these lines. What we should avoid, however, is anything along the lines of David Kathman's bizarre statement that all authorship skepticism *depends on* the spelling distinction. As we all should know, the history of the orthography of the name is much more complex than that. Many Stratfordians, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, spelled the name "Shakspere" to make clear that they were alluding to the Stratford native. Some kind of compromise wording should reflect the reality that there would naturally have been a perception, based on the name on the title page, that the Stratford man was the author.--BenJonson (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To say "the name is on the works" is to list one big piece of evidence that points to the real life man named William Shakespeare as the author. I've never seen Dave Kathman statement; can you give a reference? As far as I know, authorship questions are related to the perceived dissonance between the sublimity of the works and known background of Shakespeare of Stratford, which is to say a perception in the minds of authorship doubters that may not necessarily reflect objective reality. Shakespeare's name has been spelled Shakspere, Shakespear and Shakespere by editors of the collected works, beginning in the 18th century when his biography was almost completely unknown. As far as I've been able to find out, it was antiStratfordians that first started to refer to Shakespeare of Stratford as "Shaksper" or other variants in an attempt to differentiate him from the playwright. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexpope, I don't know who you are, but I suggest you read the references before changing the statement they support. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And, while there, check the meaning of 4^to: it doesn't mean "fourth". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I am new to this forum, but I have published a peer-reviewed article on the contributions of Alexander Pope to Shakespearean scholarship (did you know he arranged for the statue of Shakespeare in Westminster Abby in 1740?), among many other articles in professional journals. I have studied Shakespeare for 30 years and the authorship issue for at least 20. I am a semi-retired English professor who highly values precise diction, especially in discussing controversial issues with fairness and respect for a range of viewpoints. English literature is my major for both my B.A. and M.A. degrees. So I do think my opinions and suggestions have a contribution to make. Today I changed a word that referred to alternate theories of authorship as "false." That's an opinion that has never been proved; these theories are still under discussion, not "true" or "false." Alexpope (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)talk

And to Moonraker: my apologies, my mistake. I have made some corrections in spelling and punctuation to improve clarity, and I thought that was a misprint. Could you clarify what it does mean? Thanks. Mea culpa. Alexpope (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) talk

It's wikilinked, here and above, but perhaps because it's just three letters it doesn't show up too well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Name "similarity" brought up in introduction

This phrase from the introduction: "Authorship doubters believe there is a lack of concrete evidence proving that the actor/businessman baptised as 'Shakspere' of Stratford had the necessary background to create the body of literary works that bear the similar name 'Shakespeare'" seems to me to be making a premature argument about the name. As is well known, the author Shakespeare's name was printed as several variants and in hand written references by many others. In addition, the Stratford Shakespeare was also referred to with identical spelling throughout his life, as well as other variants. I'm not against making an argument against Stratford Shakespeare based on spelling, but it seems to me that the introduction is not the place to do it, except in a peripheral manner without prejudicial cherry-picked facts ("baptised as 'Shakspere'", for example. why is his baptism record more important than the name he was known by during his lifetime?) and not sneaked in as part of another argument (his background). It's Christmas Eve; let's sort this out after the holiday. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)