Wikipedia

User:Robertgreer/sandbox/O

< User:Robertgreer | sandbox

Onigiri

edit

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian

edit

This article presents a possible chronological listing of the plays of William Shakespeare, according to the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship.

The precise chronology of Shakespeare's plays as they were first written is impossible to determine, as there is no authoritative record, and many of the plays were performed many years before they were published. In fact, many of Shakespeare's earliest works were published anonymously, or remained unpublished until the First Folio (1623). Despite the difficulties of creating a verifiable chronology, many Shakespearean scholars, beginning with Edmond Malone in 1790, have attempted to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology by various means, including contemporary allusions and records of performance, entries in the Stationers' Register, dates of publication, visceral impressions and studies of the development of the playwright's style and diction over time.

Several notable early Shakespeare scholars, including A.R. Cairncross and Peter Alexander, dissented from the generally accepted Stratfordian chronology.[1] Similarly, some modern mainstream scholars, such as Eric Sams, disagree with the conventional dating system entirely.[2] Sams, for example, asserts "The dating, genesis and text of the Oxford Complete Works are therefore in urgent need of radical reappraisal. So are their stylometric computer programmes, their a priori assumptions, and their general methodology."[2]

This lack of agreement, along with a lack of information and seeming discrepancies in Shakespeare's historical record, is often cited[citation needed] in reference to the Shakespeare Authorship Question, an issue most mainstream scholars reject. Since the early 1920s, the leading alternative authorship candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.[3][4][5] Using Oxford's biography, contemporary allusions and records of performance, Oxfordian researchers have tried to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology.

Critics say that Oxfordian redating "is mostly pulled from a hat; it improbably assumes an 11-year average delay between a play’s first performance and its first clear recorded mention", which stylometrics researchers Ward Elliott, a former Oxfordian, and Robert Valenza characterized as improbable and "much lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".[6] Studies by Dean Keith Simonton, an anti-Stratfordian and former Oxfordian, support those conclusions and also support the mainstream dating of the plays.[7] Further, mainstream scholar Sidney Thomas asserts that 'there is not a shred of positive evidence to point to any activity as a playwright by Shakespeare before 1590-91.'[8]

Shakespeare authorship question

edit

The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[9] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][10] Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[11] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[12] the leading candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.[13]

Oxford candidacy

edit

Scholars and researchers who favour the Oxford candidacy are called Oxfordians. A basic proposal of the Oxfordian argument is the theory that many of the plays regarded as "late plays" or "collaborations" were actually reworkings of Oxford's earlier plays, or were revised by other writers after Oxford's death in 1604.[14]

Oxfordian researchers Eva Turner Clark, Charlton Ogburn Sr, Charlton Ogburn Jr, W. Ron Hess,[15] & Mark Anderson, among others, have attempted to reconstruct the plays' relative chronology by various means, including contemporary allusions and records of performance, entries in the Stationers' Register, dates of publication as reflected on the title pages of individual plays, a 1598 list of many of Shakespeare's plays then extant by Francis Meres, visceral impressions, and studies of Oxford's writing style over time, in addition to his education, travels, theatrical background and personal relationships.[16]

However, Dean Keith Simonton, a researcher into the factors of musical and literary creativity, especially Shakespeare’s, has conducted several studies concluding "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the traditional play chronology is roughly in the correct order, and that Shakespeare's works exhibit stylistic development over the course of his career, just as is found for other artistic geniuses.[17] Other research into the nature of creativity concludes that artistic creativity is responsive to its environment, and especially to conspicuous political events,[18] and Simonton conducted a study examining the correlation between the thematic content of Shakespeare’s plays and the political context in which they would have been written according to traditional and Oxfordian datings, using the composition dates put forth by Ogburn and Hess. When lagged two years, the Stratfordian chronologies yielded substantially meaningful associations between thematic and political context, while the Oxfordian chronologies yielded no relationships, no matter how they were lagged.[19] An anti-Stratfordian who declared his Oxfordian sympathies in the article and had expected the results to support Oxford’s authorship, Simonton concluded that "that expectation was proven wrong" and that the results instead supported the Stratfordian chronology and dating.[20]

Oxfordian Chronology of Shakespeare's Works

edit

Taking into account the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare Authorship, the following chronology represents a minority viewpoint to mainstream Stratfordian dating.[21](Dates in parentheses indicate the date of first publication only.)

Plays attributed to Shakespeare but of different or uncertain authorship

edit

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Cairncross, A.R., The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution, Macmillan & Co., 1936, pgs 182-183; Alexander, Peter, Introductions to Shakespeare, William Collin Sons & Co., 1964, pg160-162
  2. ^ a b http://www.ericsams.org/sams_oxfordorstratford.htm
  3. ^ name="brit">"Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford". Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
  4. ^ Satchell, Michael (2000-07-24). "Hunting for good Will: Will the real Shakespeare please stand up?". U.S. News. Retrieved 2007-08-31. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ McMichael, George and Edgar M. Glenn.Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy. Odyssey Press, 1962. p. 159.
  6. ^ Elliott, Ward E. Y., and Robert J. Valenza, [http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/welliott/UTConference/Oxford_by_Numbers.pdf "Oxford by the Numbers: What are the odds that the Earl of Oxford could have written Shakespeare's poems and plays?" in Tennessee Law Review vol.72:1 (2004): 323—-453; 323, 451.
  7. ^ Simonton, Dean Keith (2004), "Thematic Content and Political Context in Shakespeare's Dramatic Output, with Implications for Authorship and Chronology Controversies", Empirical Studies of the Arts (Baywood Publishing) 22 (2): 201–213.
  8. ^ Sidney Thomas, 'On the Dating of Shakespeare's Early Plays,' in 'Shakespeare Quarterly,' vol.39, No.2 (Summer, 1988) pp.187-194, p.188.
  9. ^ McMichael, George, and Edgar M. Glenn.Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy (1962), 56.
  10. ^ Kathman, 621; Niederkorn, William S.William S.Niederkorn, The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional Camp,, New York Times, 30 August 2005. Niederkorn writes, "The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors, independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and even prominent Shakespearean actors. Those who see a likelihood that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him have grown from a handful to a thriving community with its own publications, organizations, lively online discussion groups and annual conferences.";Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare;Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question,New York Times; Matus, Irvin. Doubts About Shakespeare's Authorship ─ Or About Oxfordian Scholarship?; McCrea, Scott. The Case for Shakespeare (2005), 13: “It was not until 1848 that the Authorship Question emerged from the obscurity of private speculation into the daylight of public debate.”
  11. ^ Charlton Ogburn Jr.,The Mysterious William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Reality (1984); Jonathan Bate, The Genius of Shakespeare, pg 69.
  12. ^ James, Oscar, and Ed Campbell.The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare (1966), 115.
  13. ^ Gibson, H. N. The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principal Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays (2005) 48, 72, 124; Kathman, David. "The Question of Authorship" in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, Stanley Wells, ed. (2003), 620-632, 620, 625–626; Love, Harold. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (2002), 194–209; Samuel Schoenbaum. Shakespeare's Lives, 2nd ed. (1991) 430–40.
  14. ^ Joseph Sobran, Alias Shakespeare, 1977. Page 150.
  15. ^ 'Shakespeare's Dates: Their Effect on Stylistic Analysis,' in 3 Oxfordian 71 (2000), cited in Elliott and Valenza, ibid.p.362 n.74 and passim, esp. Appendix 10, pp.452-3.
  16. ^ Ogburn, "The Mystery of William Shakespeare, 1984, pages 697-700
  17. ^ Simonton, p. 203
  18. ^ Simonton, p. 204
  19. ^ Simonton, p. 210: "If the Earl of Oxford wrote these plays, then he not only displayed minimal stylistic development over the course of his career (Elliot & Valenza, 2000), but he also wrote in monastic isolation from the key events of his day. These events would include such dramatic occasions [as] the external threat of the 1588 Spanish Armada invasion and the internal threat of the 1586 plot against Queen Elizabeth that eventually resulted in the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots."
  20. ^ Simonton, n210
  21. ^ Ogburn, "The Mystery of William Shakespeare, 1984, pages 699-735
  22. ^ Ogburn, page 699
  23. ^ Ogburn, page 699, Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, April, 2005. Page 396
  24. ^ Ogburn, page 702
  25. ^ Ogburn, page 701
  26. ^ Ogburn, page 535; http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/timon1.html
  27. ^ Sobran, page 154-55
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Elliott & Valenza, p.452
  29. ^ a b c Ogburn, page 705
  30. ^ a b c d Ogburn, page 706
  31. ^ a b c d Ogburn Jr., page 710
  32. ^ Ogburn, page 707-08
  33. ^ Clark, page 349-357
  34. ^ a b Ogburn, page 709
  35. ^ Ogburn, page 708
  36. ^ Clark, page 432-446
  37. ^ Clark, page 447-460
  38. ^ Clark, page 584-602
  39. ^ Ogburn, page 568-69
  40. ^ Ogburn, page 711
  41. ^ a b Ogburn, page 713
  42. ^ Ogburn, page 712
  43. ^ Ogburn, page 715
  44. ^ Ogburn, page 710, Sobran posits 1594
  45. ^ a b c d Ogburn, page 717
  46. ^ Ogburn, page 714, Sobran, page 156-57
  47. ^ Ogburn, p 338, Clark, pages 889-892; Anderson reports that many leading 18th & 19th century scholars dated Henry VIII to "pre-1604" including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmond Malone and James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps. Page 403
  48. ^ Ogburn Jr., page 722
  49. ^ Ogburn, page 721; Anderson posits 1585-86, page 401
  50. ^ a b Ogburn, page 721
  51. ^ Ogburn, page 723
  52. ^ Ogburn Jr., page 723
edit

Oxfordian

edit

Stratfordian

edit

Talk:Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian

Oxfordian Chronology Section

edit

I question both the value and the accuracy of this section as worded. There is really no such thing as an "Oxfordian chronology." There are various theories and conjectures about when plays were written -- some varying a great deal from the traditional Stratfordian chronology, and others only in relatively minor ways. The article should reflect that diversity of opinion, not promote one particular chronology as if all Oxfordians were in unanimous support of it.--BenJonson 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a fair comment. Feel free to add to the article where you see fit. It could take another format as well, if that format suits your comments betterSmatprt 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will hold off making any significant changes until there is a well-articulated "Oxfordian" rebuttal to the essentially Ogburnian chronology presented here. At present there is nothing comprehensive, already publishedm which can be cited. Rather than impose an unpublished alternative, which violates wiki standards, it would be better to wait. --71.206.28.90 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (BJ).

I must note that in the chronology Henry VI, Part II is repeated, once, after "Part I" as "Henry VI, Part 2", and later, after Hamlet as "Henry VI, Part II". Noting also that Henry IV, Part 2 is missing from the list. Due to the comments about "Henry VI, Part II" -- "parodied by...", this is probably the intended reference to Henry VI, Part II, whereas the "Henry VI, Part 2" may be in reference to "Henry IV, Part 2" -- this would make sense as Henry VI Part II is conjectured as 1589, which makes the 1590 revisions to the other two pre-existing (and not originally related) parts make sense -- I am making this change until the original author clarifies their position --- Ben Rowe (descended from Shakespeare editor Nicholas Rowe, just to throw it out there!)

Move

edit

to Oxfordian Chronology of Shakespeare's plays or Chronology of Shakespeare's plays (oxfordian)? Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this will be systematically excised by Smatprt

edit

I will put it here, to save retyping when I or anyone else reinserts it.

Nothwithstanding this one authorship sceptic, Diana Price, argues both that no 'Oxfordian' chronology exists and that Oxfordian theories of an alternative chronology are the weakest part of their work:

‘Ultimately, the Oxfordian attempt to undermine the traditional chronology falls apart because they really offer nothing in its place . .In fact, the Oxfordians offer no chronology at all and the dating of the plays turns out to be an issue in which they prove to be especially, one might say, woefully, weak’ [1]

I have the 2001 edition and page 166 does not include this quote. Can you double check and perhaps give the name of the chapter where this is? In my edition, her chapter on the chronology are on pages 275-288. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
My fault, and my apologies. I had that stacked away in a file, which, while searching something else, I caught, and posted it. It now turns out that, I can't recall when, I must have taken this from a citation, ostensibly from Price, in a book on Marlowe and Shakespeare, which I can't recall googling or reading, though at my age anything can happen. So if the author of that book invented it and attributed it to Price, and I didn't crosscheck, he may have an excuse - I don't. I am a thorough dickhead for not checking, and my apologies and retraction on this to you, and indirectly to Diana Price.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As my summary indicated, she is considered almost the bible of authorship scepticism, and makes two points (one of which Smatprt, again, in violation of wiki protocols, completely obfuscated by eliding all mention of it), that an 'Oxfordian chronology' does not exist, and that this is the weakest part of their argument. Smatprt says she is plain 'wrong' on point 1, but it is not his, or my business, to challenge the judgement of the best RS Oxfordians have. You can't pick and choose what is quotable according to personal taste here. Secondly Smatprt has not shown that Clark and Ogburn's so called chronology is a widely endorsed feature of the Oxfordian theory. He needs a few 'reliable sources' from the de Verean literature to back that claim, which in lieu of such, remains just that, an unsourced claim by one wikipedian editor.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Price being "almost the bible of authorship scepticism"? And let me be clear on this - when you or Tom decide that a source is incorrect and remove material, that's ok?Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
note that twice the text has 'Oxfordians have reconstructed', whereas earlier on we are given 'many Shakespearean scholars, beginning with Edmond Malone in 1790, have attempted to reconstruct the plays,' a clear example of manipulating the language of the text to convey the subliminal impression that mainstream scholarship's chronology is simply a labile proposal, whereas the Ogburnian chronology is an achieved reconstruction of history, in Ranke's words, "wie es eigentlich gewesen . .“. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Tom has just drawn our attention to the fact that Roger Stritmatter aka Ben Jonson, concurred here with Diana Price's view that there is no such thing as an 'Oxfordian chronology'. Smatprt agreed, now, after s few years, all of a sudden we have one, which predates Ben Jonson and Diana Price's remarks by decades. What's going on? Explanations please.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of you misrepresenting my words. I did not "agree" - I stated it was "a fair comment" and invited Ben to add his material to the article.Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO this is nothing more than an exercise in recording guesses. This page should be deleted and replaced with one sentence in the Oxfordian section of Shakespeare authorship question article. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that is a surprise! I suppose one could say the same thing about most of the verbiage about Shakespeare on these pages - an exercise in recording guesses. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Karl Elze

edit

Karl Elze can not be put in with Cairncross and Alexander as one who 'dissented from the generally accepted Stratfordian chronology', for the simple reason that the 'generally accepted Stratfordian chronology' alluded to was formulated by E. K. Chambers in 1930, some 41 years after Elze died. (Sidney Thomas, 'On the Dating of Shakespeare's Early Plays,' in 'Shakespeare Quarterly', Vol. 39, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 187-194 p.194)

It would help if those who edit like this thought and checked before adding such material in. One's time is limited, and one cannot waste too much of it in running about cleaning up like this, as we are unfortunately constrained to do so often on this and contiguous pages.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Diana Price, Shakespeare's unorthodox biography: new evidence of an authorship problem, Greenwood Press, 2001 p.166
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robertgreer/sandbox/O&oldid=621833005"