Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 16 July 2009

Alternative views Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shakespeare B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

2003 –

Oxfords Men

My only question is why was Oxford, being the Earl of the Oxfords men, writing plays for a competeing theartre company, Lord Chamberlain's Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.35.159 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The evidence strongly points to Oxford's involvement with another company during the 1580's -- the Queen's Men -- whom his sometime Secretary John Lyly was at least on certain ocassions the paymaster. The time frame for Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men is more or less the same, so either Oxford was involved during the 1580s with two adult troops (in addition to at least one troop of boys), or Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men were really more or less the same group operating under two different names (for details see Ward's biography of Oxford, who handled this topic better than anyone else before or after him). In any case, the Queen's Men was dissolved (for all practical purposes -- ie they did not continue playing at court and their best men went elsewhere) shortly before the Lord Chamberlain's Men was reconstituted circa 1593 (I'm always a little vague on exactly when they got started).

The critical point is that the royal company was called the Lord Chamberlain's men until 1583; for the next decade, during which we have clear evidence for Oxford's involvement with it via Lyly, it was called the Queen's Men, after having been reconstituted under the supervision of Sir Francis Walsingham after Lord Chamberlain Sussex (a close elder friend of De Vere's) died. Then it was reconstituted, after the scandal of the Queen's Men's involvement in the Marprelate controversy, as the Lord Chamberlain's Men.

Given that we can see Oxford more clearly in the picture of court entertainment during the 1580s than during the 90s this seems to admit of two possible explanations. One is that the orthodox view of authorship and theatre history is correct; for some reason Oxford lost interest in the theatre (previously a consuming ambition in his life), and other people assumed his role patronizing and providing entertainments. The other is that he remained involved in the Lord Chamberlains Men (there is only one record of his men performaing anywhere after 1590, so it would appear that a troop under his name was for all practical purposes defunct by about the same time that the Queen's Men folded) but from behind the scenes,his involvement being purposefully obscured. That would not make him Shakespeare, but it would remove the objection to which you allude.

--BenJonson (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Friederich Nietzsche

I think we need a reference for Friederich Nietzsche. I'm not saying it's wrong, but he's not on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society Honor Roll of Skeptics page, nor is there any reference to Shakespeare on the Friederich Nietzsche page on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to his sister - who is very unreliable - he was possibly a Baconian. A Baconian website attempts to read Baconism into N's own published statements, but can't find anything definitive. . Nevertheless, it wouldn't be surprising given N's belief in the ideal of the philosopher-poet (i.e. himself) and his penchant for making provocative iconoclastic claims. Oxfordian theory didn't exist in N's lifetime, so if he is to be mentioned it should be on the general authorship page, not here. Paul B 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually - in two of his books he mentons the authorship problem and in both cases suggested Bacon as the author. The mentions can be found in Will to Power and Ecce Homo. Here, he is being listed as an "anti-stratfordian" - as long as he is labled as such, I see no problem with him being listed as an official doubter.Smatprt 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the word "definitive". Perhaps also you are unaware that The Will to Power is a conflation edited by his sister. I read Ecce Homo years ago and am perfectly well aware of its contents, which are consistent with what I said. Paul B 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "definitive", I said "mentions" and "suggested". And you obviously have not even read the article and don't even know the context in which this reference is being used. But just keep picking at sores, Paul. Like a pimply teenager, it just makes you look uglier. But I suppose that just goes with your constant nastiness.Smatprt 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes difficult to believe these levels of obtuseness. I said definitive in the comment to which you replied. Do try to understand what you are reading before you reply. Picking at sores is what you do, since there was simply no point to your reply, which contained information I had already linked to. But you hadn't bothered to read it or to understand what was being said had you? I understand perfectly well the context. Paul B 11:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps he should be removed from the last paragraph of the "Further Criticism" section. I don't know who put him there, but I'd vote for him to be removed, unless there is more information. Rick 2.0 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've located a web site that quotes Nietzsche. Apparently, he was a Baconian, but this was prior to the publication of "Shakespeare Identified." I've linked to it directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Rick 2.0. There is no question that he was an anti-Stratfordian and, perhaps, by default, a Baconian. Like Whitman, who incidentally refused to endorse Bacon, he lived before the Oxfordian theory had any public profile and hence did not have the chance to weigh it in relation to the claims of the Baconians.--BenJonson (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

English way of discussing the oxfordian view

In England the oxfordian view is very controversial. When discussed, it does not lead to a discussion on content, but to a discussion as being 'ridiculous'. Even in universities a scientific approach is hardly possible. Identity and Shakespeare are so connected in England that oxfordians are mainly found outside of England. On the other hand the Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stattfordians either. This means that there are two schools opposite each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.109.60 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that "Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stratfordians." I have walked in both worlds for fifteen years. It may be true that some Oxfordians and other anti-Stratfordians are content to think of themselves as superior to orthodox academicians and will have nothing to do with Stratfordians. But I can assure you that these are as small a minority among the Oxfordians as are those in the orthodox camp who are willing to engage in rational and civil discussion on the issue. Most Oxfordians welcome discussion and debate. They understand that they have much to learn from those who have devoted their lives to studying Shakespeare and the Renaissance, even if they may be carrying assumptions that some of us regard as doubtful. The attitude of orthodox academicians, by contrast, not only in England but around the world, usuallyconstitutes a shameful example of a narrow minded majority enforcing its will on the minority by what amounts to little more than a form of intellectual apartheid. I have been continually shocked and dismayed to see how little that has changed in the past twenty years.--BenJonson (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And the point of this section is... what? (Interesting that the first accredited Authorship/Oxfordian degree program is in an English University!) Not to mention that Mark Rylance (Globe Theatre), Derek Jacobi, etc., are from that side of the pond. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm look at section on taming of shrew, its amost a word for word copy w/o attribution. whats that all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.215.167 (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

it's "almost" word for word because this is a well known parallel in oxfordian studies. I've seen it (or almost the same wording) in numerous books and websites. Since it bothers anon above that it's not referenced to this one cite, I've gone ahead and added it. There can never be too many references! Smatprt (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

Congratulations! Your article has now been nominated for GA status. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this when time permits. My first impression is that it's very long and maybe a bit POV but it should be possible to make some positive changes that will help it to GA. Otherwise, I'll have to read it through before further comment. Bodleyman (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the nomination per WP:POINT. AndyJones (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed the second nomination due to disruptive sockpuppetry. See User talk:Barryispuzzled for the details. María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we post a list of suggested reading?

Hey there, great article, quite detailed and thorough. My wish would be that there be a list of suggested reading for the newly (and not-so-newly) interested. There seem to be quite a few books on the Oxfordian authorship, both recent and less recent. I think it would be great to list them, as it's nice, and often more pleasant, to read a thorough biographical book written in comfortable casual prose, than it is to study facts online. I suggest the books be listed in a new section, titled one of the following for example: References (changing the current "references" title to "Footnotes" -- I've done this on almost every article I get involved with); Reading List; Further Reading; Suggested Reading; Recommended Reading; Books; Bibliography; Sample Reading ; Selected Reading List; or whatever you want to call it. Thanks in advance; and thanks in advance for bringing to popular light this important man's work. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• done. Smatprt (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, I just finished Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare (2006). Fantastic, exhaustive book! Thanks for recommending it in the Further Reading section; I didn't know where to start and that was the very best place -- so very thorough and detailed and an impressive work of ten years of scholarship and research. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Prose removed from captions

A caption should describe the image, and draw attention to what makes it relevant. Don't put exposition and argumentation there. These should be valuable in the prose:

• The hyphenated name appears on The Sonnets, A Lover's Complaint and on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio, where it was hyphenated on 2 of the 4 dedicatory poems. (From Sonnets-title-pg pic in Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem.)
• Both the hyphenated name and the Sonnet's dedication, specifically the words "ever-living poet", have fueled controversy within the authorship debate. (From Sonnets-ded'n-pg pic in Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem.)

There may be others, but not in the sub-sections of my edit.
--Jerzy•t 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. I know of know rule that prevents detailed explanations in captions, especially when they are entirely relevant to the debate outlined by the article itself. Also, the above referenced edit simply deletes information from the article and failed to incorporate the deleted sentences into the article itself. If you want to change this, please discuss here first and build a consensus for the change. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I presume then you've never thought about how many additional words it takes to gild a lily that is worth a thousand words, nor looked at Misplaced Pages:Captions#Succinctness nor Misplaced Pages:Captions#Wording. And perhaps you'll set to work explaining why

1. the 4-line caption in the lead secn (a good caption, ruined by following it with a sentence,
2. the 15-line one in Oxfordian theory#Was Oxford a concealed writer? (4 full sentences)
3. the 7-line and 6-line ones i found and fixed in Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem

should all be considered such exceptional cases, outside the applicability of well-consensused guidelines.
No consensus local to a topic's talk page is needed before conforming it to guidelines; rather, you should be prepared, before reverting such a change, to present a case locally that won't be laughed at if copied to, in this case, Misplaced Pages talk:Captions.
As to damaging the article:

1. It's a very rare article that requires images to convey its information (think the color drawing in Diode_bridge#Basic_operation). My guess was that the captions duplicated running prose, but if the accompanying article's information content was reduced by my edit, the problem is that information that belongs as part of the prose appeared only in captions (that inevitably obscure its relationship to the non-caption text, and invite the reader to guess about when it's a good time to interrupt their train of thot & the flow of the article to wade thru a caption and then try pick up where they left off).
2. Collaborative editing is not so much about satisfying those who happen to have previously worked on a given article, as about editors doing as much to advance an article as is in their judgment suitable for them, and counting on others to do more in their own good time; if no one has the time and interest for an hour, a week, or a year, then (to varying degrees), it's just a topic WP can't perfectly cover. At the risk of encouraging the impression that where i choose to leave off my work on this page is any of your business, i'll mention, to provide an example, that i came here somehow that had to do with my attention this evening to the garbled versions of "small Latine and lesse Greeke" -- almost certainly a hit on both "lesse" and some other word -- and after improving the aspects that quickly caught my eye, it was time to get on with finishing the task that i had let myself be distracted from. Even if i were wrong about the captions needing to be moved, it would still defy Linus's Law for me to have satisfied you: you seem to think i should not have improved the article, given my sense that someone else would do a more careful and perhaps even better informed job of reintegrating the prose where it belonged. I sure looks like i was right, but my point is that you should have limited your comments to whether i was right or wrong about the captions needing attention, and not implied that my good-faith (and effective) efforts to make sure the material didn't get lost were "damage" even if i was right.
   --Jerzy•t 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
   

Greetings. I have taken your advice and, when restoring content on this controversial edit, left intact the non-controversial good edits. (Not to say that all your edits are not necessarily good, and certainly good-faith!). I was familiar with the caption recommendations and on reviewing them, I find that they are certainly not hard and fast rules and include such qualifiers as "may" do this and "may" do that. More to the point, I still believe that what you did was simply remove properly sourced material from the article and that, for me, is the supreme no-no. Also, you deleted the context as to WHY the image was being used. Instead why not do a bit of trimming? I did restore the material a moment ago, and then I trimmed both captions a bit. More trimming might be workable, but I believe that providing proper context certainly outweighs the more flexible guideline on length. After all - to maintain the 3 line recommendation, all one needs do is make the picture bigger!?! A silly solution to be sure, but a viable one none the less. I think it better to keep the pictures the size they are and provide a caption that provides the necessary context. the alternative would be to attach more prose to a new section that sums up the 2 captions in question. In that case, however, previous editors have reached a consensus that a separate section on the hyphen alone is probable overkill - thus the detailed caption. Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also - you must admit, in spite of your own stated POV against the topic in general, that this is a pretty complicated topic that requires a greater level of detail than most! Cheers!Smatprt (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know what you are referring to, but if you are going to infer my PoV in that fashion, it is grossly irresponsible to do so without either quoting or linking to the supposed basis. You have only an unfounded fantasy about what my PoV on the topic is, and i'm inclined to think you have made a personal attack in claiming to have read my mind.
  --Jerzy•t 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  

Oh come on - now you are just being silly. Oh - wait - are you saying you are an anti-Stratfordian then? Why then, welcome to the cause! :) Smatprt (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the material is notable (and free of notable PoV problems), and the level of detail appears to me to be appropriate, indeed probably necessary. The issues i have raised about detail have to do with how to structure the info.
  --Jerzy•t 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  

Splitting of article

Splitting an article that has grown too big is a tough task, but it is one that should start being discussed in this case. There are something like 40 sections, yielding a ToC that for me fills almost two screen-heights. The marked-up text is something like 80 kb, which is at least a two-fold problem:

1. It violates (by a factor of nearly 3) the utterly inflexible 32kB limit for articles that are guaranteed to be editable by all users.
2. The size range generally regarded as a limit of readability as an encyclopedia article are several times smaller than 32 kB; keeping the ToC to a size where it can be used almost at a glanced, rather than requiring study to reach a suitable section is closely related to this.

There can be two basic approaches to oversize articles: reaching consensus among frequent editors as to how the article can be "cut as its joints", producing smaller articles that respect the subtopics natural boundaries, or if that shows no reasonable prospect of resolution, making a reasonable common sense division, and optimizing boundaries after the fact.
It seems the article is overdue to get the discussion underway.
--Jerzy•t 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. While I agree we should start this discussion, I would ask that you be more careful in quoting rules that are "utterly inflexible". Please note at WP:LENGTH the following:

A rule of thumb Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: Readable prose size What to do > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 30 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division

Also note that this does not include graphics, references, redirects, etc, but is limited to the "Readable prose" only. On this, does anyone know a simple way of measuring ONLY the readable prose? Smatprt (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Select the body text in the web browser window and copy and paste it into a text editor. My text editor happens to give me some document statistics directly, but you could also just save the text to a temporary file and then look at the file size (make sure you look at actual size and not size rounded to multiples of the filesystem block size). The current article is 61.384 characters (including punctuation and citation markers etc.), which, at one byte per character, means the article is just about at the 60KB mark.

The size suggests it's a good idea to look at whether it should be split, or possibly just trimmed a bit, but I certainly wouldn't consider this alone a throbbing red sign screaming that the article must be split. I'd recommend starting with looking for stuff to trim first (remember, it's an encyclopedia; the amount of detail should be limited!) and then asess whether splitting is still necessary and possible afterwards. --Xover (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry i confused you re "limit" (my word) vs. "rule" (which is inapplicable); perhaps i should have said "something like "exceed" rather than "violate". This is an absolutely inflexible technical limitation; the effect of exceeding 32K is, as i implied, that some editors cannot perform some appropriate edits on the article.
  --Jerzy•t 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  

I think perhaps the current updated version of WP:LENGTH#Technical_issues would be pertinent here. --Xover (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I edited again bcz of the sore-thumb intentional Dab lk in the HatNote, and found some other hopefully small issues:

1. The final dependent clause of the lead sent includes

   ... attributed to ...

   while that of the last sent of the lead 'graph has

   ... to whom authorship is generally credited ...

   but i think NPoV calls for "generally" in both places. I'd have done the edit but for the fear that the missing word was not just an oversight.

2. "While mainstream scholars reject ..." has to be way too strong:
   1. We don't throw in tautologies, so that's not a restatement of "the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship is distinguished by the exclusion of those who don't reject ..."
   2. While it's reasonable to expect "mainstream scholars" to mean "mainstream English literature scholars" or words to that effect, i don't find it reasonable to mean "academic Shakespeare specialists".
   3. Unless that kind of restriction is explicit, i just don't find such a blanket rejection conceivably verifiable, or remotely plausible: perhaps no one can take the cognitive dissonance of hiding anti-Stratfordian views while seeking tenure as a Shakespearist, but surely there are closet anti-Stratfordians in other literary specialties.

   While i don't want to try to word it, isn't there somewhere a reliable source that says (without weasel words) something more plausible, along the lines of "mainstream literary scholars never publicly admit to doubting that ..."?

3. Following the EB ref got me to (in relevant part)

   The debate, however, remained lively in the late 20th century.

   which is neutral or contrary to

   ... popular interest in the debate continues to grow ...

   so i've added a fact tag just for the one clause. I didn't pay for EB, but it appears they now only make it frustrating not to pay, rather than actually limiting you to a teaser. Even if i'm mistaken in thinking the 4 'graphs & other readings i saw are all of it, IMO another source -- a non-confusing one -- should be a high priority.

--Jerzy•t 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 nomination

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Misplaced Pages release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Misplaced Pages:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

I've reluctantly decided to put this article on hold. I think it's a nice article in many ways, but it does seem to be heavily pro-Oxfordian. The other aspect is that it scores very poorly on all of our importance ratings. We could forgive the latter if the article were and FA, because it provides a nice twist on a really major article (Shakespeare), but on balance I think we should hold it for 0.7. Walkerma (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: "but it does seem to be heavily pro-Oxfordian." Not sure what you were expecting in an article called Oxfordian theory. Plus, the word THEORY is in the title itself, stating upfront the hypothetical nature of the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of the man from Stratford-upon-Avon?

Since, as far as I understand it, the man from Stratford-upon-Avon's name was not — nor did he call himself — "William Shakespeare," and since his name was instead Will Shaksper (or perhaps occasionally Shaxsper/Shagsper/Shakspere), why are we calling him "William Shakespeare"? It seems that both the first and the last name are not accurate. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

________

From the authorship article:

"Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare"

There was no standardised spelling in Elizabethan England, and throughout his lifetime Shakespeare of Stratford's name was spelled in many different ways, including "Shakespeare". Anti-Stratfordians conventionally refer to the man from Stratford as "Shakspere" (the name recorded at his baptism) or "Shaksper" to distinguish him from the author "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" (the spellings that appear on the publications), who they claim has a different identity. They point out that most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, "Shak-" or sometimes "Shag-" or "Shax-", whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake". Stratfordians reject this convention, believing it implies that the Stratford man spelled his name differently from the name appearing on the publications. Because the "Shakspere" convention is controversial, this article uses the name "Shakespeare" throughout. Smatprt (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Justice John Paul Stevens "The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction" UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW (v.140: no. 4, April 1992)
2. Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, David Kathman, Editors Wells/Orlin, Oxford University Press, 2003, page 624; David Kathman The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name at The Shakespeare Authorship Page, Retrieved 27 October 2007.

______________

I don't see any non-partisan, unbiased, viewable confirmation in those citations. The first citation is unclickable, and the second is quite partisan and also not backed up by anything. Here's another link (also partisan, but in an Anti-Stratfordian slant) that details the known verifiable signatures of the Stratford man:

Shakespeare’s signatures: Shaksper’s six authentic signatures are subscribed to the following documents:

• His deposition in a lawsuit brought by Stephen Bellott against his father-in-law Christopher Montjoy, a Huguenot tire-maker, of Silver-street, near Wood-street in the city of London, with whom Shaksper lodged about the year 1604; dated May 11, 1612. (Discovered by Dr. C. W. Wallace in the Public Record Office).
• Conveyance of a house in Blackfriars, London, purchased by Shaksper March 10, 1613. (Now in the Guildhall Library).
• Mortgage-deed of the same property; March 11, 1613. (Now in the British Museum).
• 5. 6. Shaksper’s Will & Testament, written on three sheets of paper, with his signature at the foot of each one; executed March 25, 1616. (Now in Somerset House).

The six signatures, one of them prefaced by the words “By me”, present a meagre total of fourteen words. The actual signatures are to be read thus:

• Willm Shakp
• William Shaksper
• Wm Shakspe
• William Shakspere
• Willm Shakspere
• By me William Shakspeare

That's all from this link I came across: (Plus, my understanding is that the surname on the will is not even in the man's hand, but in someone else's.) It would be very nice to have some unbiased, non-partisan, disinterested scholarship that explored this subject — that is, the Stratford man's actual name and signature before the alleged pseudonym came into being (so that the pseudonym's influence is avoided). I really don't know why everyone has to take sides when researching. I mean, facts are facts. Even the assertion that name spellings were fluid and that "Shak" could be and was pronounced "Shake" consistently comes only from one stand-point and not the other, it seems. Whatever happened to pure research, uninfluenced by viewpoints? *sigh* Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oxford's motive

Sorry, but I don't get it. Why would anyone be committed to redating Shakespeare plays to prove the point that Oxford was still alive to write them? Surely, it should be the other way round. The scholarship shows that he was dead when many of them were conceived. Why isn't that good enough? Why would he want to be concealed when he's already mentioned in the Arte of English Poetry (1589) as the "best for comedy among us"? Why do the supposed allusions to Oxford in the plays imply that he wrote them? Why should they necessarily be autobiographical? What about allusions to other contemporary figures in the plays (e.g. Marlowe and the "great reckoning in a little room") - does that mean they wrote the play it appears in? Seems to me evidence is ignored that doesn't fit while only considering the bits that do fit - selective interpretation. (Isnotwen (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, but the "scholarship" shows no such thing. There has been no "necessary source" identified that is post-1604. Lots of assumptions, presumptions, maybes, possiblys - but no concrete proof one way or another. Why be concealed? Perhaps you might read Ogburn or Anderson, as they have laid out many reasons. Otherwise you might be accused of selective interpretation yourself.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That can easily be said of Oxford: "Lots of assumptions, presumptions, maybes, possiblys - but no concrete proof one way or another". At least Mr Shakespeare was in a company that acted the plays. There's no proof that Oxford went anywhere near one. Surely Anderson cannot be classed as a scholarly source! It's a very poor book full of tenuous connections and I think that only someone who's prejudiced in favor of Oxford would bother completing it. So Meres refers to Oxford and Shakespeare in the same list: that's hardly concealment on Oxford's part! Here are the million dollar questions: What would it take for an Oxfordian to reject Oxford as Shakespeare? What is the test against which, if Oxford failed, an Oxfordian would say "it's not him"? Or is it just a religion? (Isnotwen (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry but your statements betray a lack of information about Oxford. When you say there is "no proof Oxford went anywhere near one (an acting company), you are obviously unaware that Oxford was the patron of several adult acting companies, at least one children's company, held the lease on the Blackfriar's theatre, and personally interceded with Queen Elizabeth on behalf of an acting company that like to play at the"Bores Head". The reference on this, by the way, not Anderson, but Chambers! Furthermore, as a youth growing up in Castle Edingham, he would have grown up in a residence occupied regularly by the acting company patronized by his father, as well as the numerous touring groups that entertained at a number of well documented dinners and celebrations. Your statement that there is no "concrete proof" about Oxford being Shakespeare is stating the obvious. If there were, we wouldn't have much of an "authorship question" would we? I'm afraid, given your lack of neutrality on this issue, your million dollar questions are simply thinly veiled attacks on Oxfordians in general, instead of a well-reasoned response to the argument at hand. This really isn't helpful on these pages. Smatprt (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply meant by "no proof that Oxford went anywhere near one" that there is no direct connection of Oxford to any Shakespeare play. It might have been more appropriate to ask for clarification first. Thank you. (Please see your Talk page) Isnotwen (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Lyly and Munday worked for Oxford. Not sure if they have a direct connection to a Shakespeare play. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence

Am I missing something here? The article states "The case for Oxford's authorship ... is based on abundant similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays". Surely, that's not evidence? It's true that some writers such as Dickens put themselves in their novels, for example, Pip in Great Expectations. But other writers just characterize people they know. From Twelfth Night, when Sir Toby Belch torments the puritanical Malvolio with unruly behavior, there's an argument that Sir Toby Belch represents Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby who was embroiled in a similar incident involving puritans. This would not pass for evidence that Hoby wrote Twelfth Night. Regarding Measure for Measure, the "bed-trick" was a common device in plays and many people worked to save relatives from death. The article gives undue weight to this evidence by not mentioning the number of other plays that also used these tricks. The whole point of introducing Claudio's fornication was for the unpleasant Angelo to use an unjust law on him which punished it with death. The moral is forgiveness acted out by Duke Vincentio and to encourage overlooking cruel laws. The play makes no issue of changing murder to seduction. If you want this theory taken seriously then the evidence needs to be better. Can I suggest that someone runs through this article to tighten up on the arguments? I could do it but time is presently scarce. Torricelli01 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Close to GA

This article is pretty well cited and close to GA. I think it ought to be put up for GA status once everything is cited and minor issues are taken care of. I would perceive promotion to GA or FA as a victory of sorts for the Shakespeare project. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I have serious reservations about all the authorship related articles—reservations that are unrelated as such to my opinion about the authorship question itself—that would make me very hesitant to support any of them for FA; but even in that light a cursory scan of this article suggests it's at least close to GA level. If those of you who have worked on this article feel it's ready I'd say go for it, and I'll try to chip in where I can (which probably won't be much). On a related note, if anyone would like to discuss the possibility of a drive to improve the various authorship related articles to FA level I have, as mentioned, some thoughts there that I've been meaning to bring up at an auspicious time (but, you know, Real Soon Now™ is a moving target). --Xover (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, first things first. GA before FA. Putting it up for a peer review on the way to FA would draw in a lot of views from experienced editors and give us a good idea of where to go. Shakespearean authorship question is also pretty close to GA. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Permission to abbreviate the repeated citations?

Since three or four of the books cited, in the same editions, are repeated numerous times, I'd like to abbreviate their subsequent listings so that what is cited is only the author's last name, the year of publication, and the page number(s). As such:

Anderson (2005), p. 132.
Ogburn (1984), p. 52.
Sobran (1997), p. 89.

Looney is more difficult since various editions have been used for citation; if we could get them all from the 1920 edition it would work for Looney as well (was the book expanded with more info in the later editions?).

Anyway, what this would accomplish is: (A) cut down a little bit on the byte-size of the article, and (B) force readers to look at the first iteration of the citation, which will be linked to its GoogleBooks/Amazon listing or equivalent so that the reader can verify the information (if I haven't linked it yet it, I'm going to) and will have the full title, author, publisher, and date.

What say you? It's easy for me to do and I'd like to do it if it's agreeable. Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me.Smatprt (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mersea theory

Why no mention of the Mersea theory? Granted, it's on the non-credible side, but it could explain some things, including later dates and certain later information in the plays, and the lack of will, funeral, and so forth. I haven't read too much on it but as I recall what I've read bears considering, and I think it possibly bears at least a mention, as controversial as it is, especially if the Prince Tudor theory is being covered in depth. Heck, even one or two sentences could cover it, with a citation for further reading. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty far-fetched, imho. I suppose a line within the Prince Tudor theory would be the only place it might fit, but I think it ranks up there with Bacon never dying but "ascending to a higher state". Or the moon landing being faked... Wow. (Also, have there been any serious reviews or substantiation of any part of it, or is it still a one-author theory? Smatprt (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, belongs in the PT article, not here. I don't know much about it except I ran across it once on the Internet and it stuck in my head. I wasn't even aware of who originated it but I see now it is Streitz, and no one has taken him up on that. There's no cause for such a theory anyway except to maintain that Oxford wrote the King James Bible, which I understand was in fact written by a team of 47 scholars assembled by James. Softlavender (talk)

What do you mean by the "Mersea theory"? Are you referring to the theory that Mersea Island, Essex, being the closest large island to the Earl of Oxford's residence at Castle Hedingham, was the real venue described as "Propsero's Island" in The Tempest (see "The Oxford Code" at www.freewebs.com/caliban5/)? Colcestrian (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Colcestrian: I find not the words Prospero or island on that website. I'm not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Softlavender above wrote on "The Mersea Theory". I'm just asking what is meant by that? Colcestrian (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Stratfordian objection

I poste the following, but someone deleted it: "The primary objection to Oxfordian theory is that there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford to the plays and poems published under the name 'William Shakespeare,' nor any contemporary objection to the attribution of the plays and poems to the Stratford actor. The coincidences cited by Oxfordians are rejected as no more convincing that the coincidences that appear to the connect the writings to Bacon, to Marlowe or to the other authorial candidates."

The line that "there is no direct documentary evidence..." comes from an earlier paragraph in the article itself. The major objection to this theory is not the 1604 date. The major objection among mainstream scholars is that they don't think the Oxfordians have presented the minimal documentary evidence that would marit taking the theory seriously. That's why mainstream scholars regard Oxfordians as cranks rather than as serious scholars with a dissenting point of view. If the 1604 date were the major sticking point, you would see an engagement with the theory, because everyone knows dating the plays is very tricky.

I think my paragraph should be put back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.169.191 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No. (1) You haven't sourced/referenced it. (2) The Stratfordian case and objections are presented in specific detail in the article in various sections. (3) Oxfordian scholarship cannot be considered 'minimal' at this point because it comprises dozens of volumes' worth of well-documented correspondences between the Shakespeare works and Oxford's known life, biography, works, and nature. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Anti-Stratfordians

This might be more germane to the article if it only included notables who favoured Oxford. I'm not sure that mere notability should convey admittance to the Oxford page. To me, if the section might be more appropriate in the Shakespeare_authorship article. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s appropriate on both pages, being that the standard Stratfordian counter-argument in either location is to launch ad hominem attacks on the "looney" theory that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the plays. Listing notable anti-Stratfordians, some of who did not have the chance to be Oxfordians, simply makes the point that this theory doesn't deserve off-hand contempt. Rick 2.0 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rick on this. Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length

While this has been discussed before, it's definielty time to split the article into separate articles, due to length concerns. As it stand now, it's well past the 60KB suggested limit as described at WP:SIZERULE. The obvious section to split out would be the "parallels with the plays" section, so I have created a new article at Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays and added a link from this article. I think this is a good thing as now we can expand the new article with a section on every play. Eva Turner Clark's book, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare's Plays is an excellent source for much of this material, as she examines every play from a topical/Oxfordian point of view and much of her work has been expanded on by Ogburn and Anderson. Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, Vol. 4, p. 334, cxxx

• Unassessed Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Shakespeare articles
• Mid-importance Shakespeare articles
• WikiProject Shakespeare articles