Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Asimov comment

Mav removed the Asimov comment questioning his authority; I restored it. A talented and prolific writer and scientist like Asimov is certainly qualified to comment on the likely habits of another author/scientist, and the comment is a very good one, authorities aside. Good information is good information, credentials be damned. --LDC

Yeah, credentials be damned. Otherwise we wouldn't have a Wikipedia at all! And Asimov's collected works are pretty much an encyclopedia all by themselves, plus a lot of good fiction.

That said, the quoted comment isn't the brightest thing he ever said. After all, "Even Homer nods." There are anachronisms in all sorts of published works. There's a clock in Julius Caesar too, and even an out-of-town wool merchant would have known that clocks were invented after Caesar. Ortolan88 21:05 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

On second read the sentence doesn't seem that out of place. However lets not stray too far and buy into the logical fallacy of Appeal to authority. This is the exact type of thing user:MichaelTinkler left over. BTW, I know of a few PhD physicists and economists that think evolution is a load of bunk. I say, so what? --mav

I meant I didn't have any credentials to write half the stuff I write, except I look it up, think about it, and try hard to get it right. Ortolan88

Among his however-many books Asimov wrote, he did write on Shakespeare. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare -- Zoe

Oxfordian

Uh oh... an Oxfordian has struck! I don't know enough to NPOV this. Can anyone help out? john 01:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In fact, this whole page seems to have been taken over by anti-Stratfordians. Come on, surely there's someone knowledgeable about this who can fix it? Anybody? john 08:23 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually I am not really an Oxfordian and I did not "strike" like a natural disaster or something. I was merely trying to insert accurate information and reduce some of the slanted wording of the original article. The information on de Vere was incomplete, inaccurate, and strongly biased in favor of William of Stratford. I know much more about the Oxfordian arguments than about those for Marlowe, Bacon, etc., so I didn't presume to edit anything about which I was poorly informed. I was careful to present facts as facts (at least as far as we can know them when we are all relying on the research of others) and to indicate supposition as such. (That's more than was true for the original, by the way in which opinion was called "fact." I'm not referring to the opinion of who the correct author is---no one really knows for sure. I am referring instead to the line in the article that said that it was a fact that de Vere's poetry was mediocre. How can that be a fact?) I am new to Wikipedia. Maybe I'm out of line in adding information to someone else's article, but after reading the introductory material, etc., for Wikipedia, I was under the impression that that was precisely the purpose. Am I wrong?

By the way, this page IS about the authorship controversy, isn't it? This IS the correct place to present the arguments, right?

Yes, arguments about the authorship controversy go here. But I felt that the article, as presently edited, was pretty strongly biased towards the Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian viewpoint. Given that almost all actual Shakespeare scholars agree that Shakespeare was the man of Stratford (when somebody brought up the question in one of my college English classes, the professor basically laughed it off), it seems to me that the Stratfordian side ought to be represented as the orthodox position first, that then the anti-Stratfordian positions ought to be expounded upon, and that then counter arguments from the Stratfordians can be presented. I dunno, let me look over the article and see what to do. john 20:08 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place to recite the arguments. But a neutral point of view means we do not leave the impression that because there are two sides of an argument, they are of equal validity, or present flawed arguments as thought they were reasonable. John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people, at odds with reputable Shakespeare scholars: we should not leave the impression that there are two equal groups with equally valid arguments slugging it out in the ditches: that would be a disservice to those who expect accurate information. -- Someone else

I made some changes myself and toned down both "sides" quite a bit, trying to be meticulous about NPOV. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to present the controversy as a war between hostile sides, although undoubtedly some people feel that way. People tend to get quite emotional about this subject, and it IS fascinating. I think maybe my knowledge of the arguments for de Vere might be better placed on the page devoted to de Vere himself than on the more general "controversy" page. Does that seem more appropriate to you? As I said, I'm new at this, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or violate protocol. I just thought a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implied a treatment of the controversy, not a validation of one point of view and ridicule of others. But like I said, maybe this page is the place for GENERAL information about the controversy, while pages on the individual alternative candidates would be the place for specific arguments. What do you think about that approach? By the way, I'm not surprised that your college English professor laughed off the idea of the controversy. English teachers are loathe to consider anything that even suggests Shakespeare may have been someone other than the man they've been loyal to since high school literature class. I AM an English teacher, and my position is this: my loyalty is to the AUTHOR, whoever he may be! The mystery is just fascinating to me. I would be just as pleased to find out that "Willie did it" as I would be to find out that "De Vere did it." I just can't ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence for de Vere. It may all be coincidence---but WOW! what a coincidence! Hey, how do you sign these things? I'm not trying to be anonymous---just thought I set up a signature thing but it apparently isn't working.

to sign, use three tildes "~~~" or to sign and add a time-stamp, use four tildes "~~~~" -- Someone else 20:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the De Vere arguments are better placed here than on the de Vere page. I agree with you that the page should treat the controversy, but it seems to me that the "mountain of circumstantial evidence" is hardly that, given that there are numerous Stratfordian arguments that pretty much demolish all of it. And that the Oxfordians have rarely responded except by putting up the same arguments over and over again. But obviously, you disagree. Basically, I agree with Someone Else that NPOV does not mean that two unequal arguments should be presented as having equal validity. And I'm getting really sick and tired of these damned edit conflicts whenever I try to write anything! john 20:40 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You miss the whole point, as does Someone Else. The question of validity of the different sides is the basis of the entire controversy. If one side were clearly valid and the other was not, there would BE no controversy now, would there? Again, I think a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implies a discussion of the controversy. You guys just want a page that should be called "Shakespeare Did It." Just out of curiosity, how much research have you actually done into the arguments for de Vere? There is indeed a mountain of evidence, albeit circumstantial. However, I'm running up the white flag and retreating from Wikipedia. It isn't worth this hostility for me to try to inform people who may not ever have been made aware that there is controversy about the topic. I don't need this headache. Have fun. --- Tsunamimome 21:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not hostile at all. And the page as it is does inform people that there's a controversy. But it's a very marginal controversy. No major scholars of Shakespeare believe that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote it, as far as I know. So, yes, this page should inform people about the controversy, and about what the Oxfordians say, and what the Baconians say, and so forth. But it should also present what the Stratfordians say in response, which imo generally demolishes the Oxfordian (and other anti-Stratfordian) arguments.

In any event, if you'd like, feel free to add in some more detail into the Oxfordian arguments (I'm familiar with some of them, but not all). And don't let old stratfordian curmudgeons like me (while, I'm not really old, except in spirit, perhaps) drive you away from the wikipedia. We're not trying to make the page into a "Shakespeare wrote it" page. We're trying to make it into a page that accurate reflects the state of the debate. And the state of the debate is that most scholars believe that Shakespeare wrote it, but that a small, but vocal, minority strenuously disagrees. Their arguments certainly ought to be presented on this page, and you ought to put down as much as you'd like. But be aware that others will edit it, and probably change around some of your points. That's kind of how this thing works, and you grow to accept the fact that you won't get exactly what you wanted on every page. In any event, there's no hostility on my part, and you oughtn't let a disagreement over one page turn you off the whole wikipedia. Stick around for a while and see if it gets better. ;-) john 22:27 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tsunamimome, it would be sad to have someone leave Wikipedia on the basis of one experience. You might want to try editing an article you have no particular feelings about (try Special:Randompage) to see if it's more enjoyable. -- Someone else 22:52 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people"

I'm just curious what the basis for this claim is? I have studied the authorship question intensively for nearly fifteen years now, and interest in the case for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespearean canon has never been higher than it is today, in the opening years of the 21st century. We could discuss some of the facts which substantiate this conclusion, but since your claim was proffered first, perhaps you'd like to back it up with some kind of factual reasoning. --BenJonson 21:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Passive voice

As early as the eighteenth century doubts about Shakespeare's authorship were expressed, This construction in the passive voice ('Legend has it...') is so often used to cloak spurious information, that I'm skeptical. Any authentic reference? Anti-Stratfordian literary snobbery is much more characteristic of 19th century attitudes. Early 18th century still saw 'touched-up' Shakespeare, corrected for contemporary theatrical tastes. Wetman 18:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this line a while back, admittedly it was a bit slapdash at the time as I was more concerned with organising the TOC. I've emended it and added the references I had in mind. The information comes from John Michell's book. 144.138.194.183 13:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ogburn legit?

I was considering for a while incorporating some pro-Oxford material on this page ultimately derived from Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare. However, I have found several instances in which his claims are refuted, and a recent search to determine whether or not he is a respectable source is inconclusive (some say he's an excellent writer and extremely persuasive; others that he manipulates and ignores evidence that compares unfavourably with his theories). So would it be O.K. to include these arguments, or not? Brutannica 02:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he's a well-known advocate of the view and you list references on the quality of that reference, that would be entirely on topic! - David Gerard 08:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ogburn is at least as reliable, in any given instance, as the academic authorities his book cites for the purpose of confirmation or refutation.--BenJonson 21:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Marlowe

I must have words with someone regarding this issue. To be specific to change the entry to reflect some measure of uncertainty, and coincidence between Marlowe and Shakespeare. Like:

"Marlowe's death does indeed appear suspicious, but no part of this scenario is supportable by anything other than conjecture. In any case, Marlowe's work is stylistically and intellectually quite different from Shakespeare's."

One might expect stylistic differences from a possibly alive Marlowe that was living in a new culture (Italy), and learned from his mistakes in order to not endanger Shakespeare. Such as to set the plays in the past so that any perceived criticism of the current rich and powerful could be easily deflected.

As to intellectually you may need to be more precise, but I would submit that perhaps parts, such as segments spoken by common men, were indeed written (re-written) by Shakespeare in a collaborative effort. Certainly there are numerous similarities (and outright copying) of verses from Marlowe. Of course it can be argued Shakespeare borrowed from a famous playwright he knew, but that is one POV.

As to the images caption:

"Christopher Marlowe has been cited as a possible author for Shakespeare's works, but was dead during most of Shakespeare's career."

I think that should be changed to presumed dead, and something should be mentioned about Venus and Adonis being published a mere 12-13 days after Marlowe's death. (Initially submitted anonymously, then after Marlowe is dead the name Shakespeare is added.)

My information comes from a Masterworks documentary I watched on TVO some time ago. I recorded a few minutes of it, unfortunately I don't have the entire thing. Also I have yet to find an online reference to this documentary. Aha... a little Googling and success.

Much Ado About Something:

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/
• http://www.muchadoaboutsomething.com/making.html

RoyBoy 23:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though I know a little about the Authorship subject, I try not to involve myself too much because, IMO, the roots of the controversy rest largely in:

• People's basic love of believing that what you thought you knew isn't true, and if you accept a different explanation, now you are smarter than everyone else. Shakespere=Oxford interesting. Shakespeare=Shakespeare borrrrrrrrrrrrringggg.
• Academic bigotry: "Gee, this Shakespeare guy wrote better than I did, even though I have a PhD in English Lit. If he had a lesser education, then maybe other people who don't have a PhD might be smarter than I am. So Shakespeare must have been someone of higher breeding and quality, just like me!"
• Too much free time. Oops, I guess that applies to me and everybody else on Wikipedia. ;-)
  

A great problem with most of the arguments that Shakespeare <> Stratford is the extent to which facts are bent so that they fit the argument, so now, if Marlowe's being dead is an embarassment, well, maybe he wasn't dead at all! I think it's shameful that public TV, which always complains it doesn't have enough money, attaches its good(?) name to speculations to drum up interest in its work. As to Marlowe, maybe we should stop reading the "what-ifs" and read his plays. Yes, his work is more like Shakespeare's than some others of his time (IMO, others disagree), but, aside from the inconvenient fact that he was almost certainly dead while "Shakespeare's" work continued in its familiar style, why in the world would Marlowe market his very best work under the name "Shakespeare" and put fine but lesser works (Jew of Malta, Edward II) under his own? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a convincing argument that Marlowe was killed at the tavern, which includes a reference to a spy report filed by one Thomas Drury against a Richard Chomeley who appeared to have been inspired to assasinate the Queen by Marlowe's atheism. The Privy Council also had an informer Richard Baines who said that Marlowe claimed "as good a right to coin as the Queen of England." So Marlowe appears not to have had friends in high places who were prepared to support a secret life abroad. Perhaps the article is already too long to include this argument and accompanying references. barryispuzzled 01:45 2 September 2006

Shakespeare WikiReader

This page has been reviewed and judged to be ready to be saved in static form as part of the William Shakespeare WikiReader. If you believe that the version of this page which was checked ([1]), is not suitable for static reproduction, please raise your concerns on the WikiReader talk page The bellman 10:26, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

The Fake Signature

I made quite a number of changes in this page, to try to shore up the objectivity of tone, and include a more complete, accurate, and less biased account of the Shakespearean authorship question, a topic I've studied as an element of intellectual history for almost fifteen years now (I hold a master's degree in Anthropology and a PhD in Comparative Literature). I have one further comment, which is indicative of the further changes which will be required to make the page something which anyone at Wikepedia can stand behind: where in the hell did we get that graphic of the alleged Sh. signature? That is not a legitimate signature, but some kind of hoax. Please, if we're going to reproduce a graphic of that importance, we should be sure to use something which is legitimate. There is no source listed for this graphic, it is *not* a legimitate Sh. signature,...hm...looks like someone got creative and we fell for it. Let's do something about that, can we? And please don't flame me as an "Oxfordian." My personal conviction is not the issue. The issue is producing a document which can 1) not fall prey to this kind of hoax and 2) accurately reflect the true state of the intellectual debate, which the page as previously edited certainly did not. --BenJonson 21:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BenJonson's claims to objectivity are disingenuous. Here are two whole paragraphs he removed without a word of explanation. Notice that both undermine the Oxford case -

"Shakespeare's colleague Ben Jonson stated that Shakespeare knew "small Latin, and less Greek," which by the standards of the day implies that Shakespeare the actor was likely to have studied both at least partially. This supports the argument that he did indeed attend a school at some time."

The unidentified commentator avoids the primary issue addressed in my comment by attacking my objectivity. Is it his contention that the alleged "signature" is real? It is not. It is an embarrasment to Wikipedia.

Second, as to my edits, I challenge the respondent to quote the full statement. Nowhere does Ben Jonson say, that "Shakespeare knew "small Latin, and Less Greek." That is simply quoting out of context.

Next, the respondent imputes to me a motive of removing the inaccurate text because it "undermines the Oxford case." He does not say how; his argument is one that depends on innuendo and prejudice, not a clearly reasoned analysis of factual evidence.

--BJ ...

"The supposed connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays is conjectural at best, for instance, and the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest. Near contemporaries, like John Dryden, indicated that Shakespeare got many details wrong in his depiction of life at court, meaning that Oxford's court connections do not support the case for his authorship very strongly. Oxford died in 1604, perhaps the most convincing argument against Oxford's authorship, as ten of Shakespeare's plays are most likely written after Oxford's death, and several specifically refer to events later than 1604 — e.g. The Tempest, which alludes to a 1609 shipwreck in Bermuda."

I refer the commentator to Mark Anderson's recent work on this subject, published by Gotham press in 2005. What does he mean by "conjectural"? If this page is to have any merit as an accurate representation of the state of the debate on Shakespearean authorship, the chief arguments of the rival claimants should be represented here. Those familiar with the case for Oxford believe that there is a striking correlation between the plots and thematic emphases of many plays and the incidents and themes of Oxford's life.

--BJ

The edits over the last couple of days need to be reviewed. They also include a number of dubious links.68.118.61.219 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "true state" of the debate is debatable. Oxford is the current darling of a portion of the academic crowd, who study hints and esoteric connections the way the Romans studied the entrails of birds (poor birds!). Can you imagine if Oxford and not Shakespeare had a son named "Hamnet"? Why it would have been proof positive as to who Shakespeare "really" was! :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notice the prejudicial language: "current darling"..."academic crowd". I challenge the fairness and accuracy of these designations. Supporters of the Oxford case include Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, Sir Derek Jacobi, and Jeremy Irons,none of whom fit the writer's narrow-minded conception of who he is disputing with.

--BJ

I agree. A lot of tendentious edits have been made to tilt this article towards the Oxfordian theory: [2]. PRiis 06:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would the writer define "tendentious"? I began my comment by noting that this page as previously constructed flagrantly displayed a fraudulent signature as it if were the real thing, quoted Ben Jonson out of context to make him appear to say something that it is doubtful he ever did, and noted further erroneous matter on the page. I am sorry if those edits and comments strike you as "tendentious." I think that many may not agree.

--BJ

I don't think that too many actual academics are very interested in the authorship debate in general, or in the Oxfordian theory specifically. It is mostly the domain of enthusiastic amateurs. I remember in an English class undergrad when somebody brought up the authorship question and the professor basically ridiculed it. Academics think enough stupid things without accusing them of being responsible for this nonsense. john k 16:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completely wrong. For ten years now Concordia University in Portland Oregon has sponsored an annual Shakespeare Authorship Conference, at which numerous academics, most of them Oxfordians, participate. I personally know a dozen scholars in various relevant feilds who are either convinced that Oxford was the author or are at least very open and curiout about the possibility that he may not have been. "Nonsense" is simply a display of Mr. Kennedy's prejudice and really should have no place in a discussion such as this one.

--BJ

The title of this section is 'Thre Fake Signature'. No-one seems to be addressing this problem. I certainly don't recognise this as one of the authentic Shakespeare signatures. It's not even in secretary hand. Does anyone know where it comes from? Paul B 12:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul. At last someone is willing to grant the problem which I was chiefly concerned to note. --BJ

Well apart from the obvious answer, www.PDimages.com (I guess you mean where did they get it from), it can also be found at ox.ac.uk so perhaps they've been hoodwinked too. Other examples such as [3], [4] and [5] all look completely different. I've seen the one on on the red seal in the British Library, but I have a vague recollection that the caption they had mentioned some caveat as to whether that signature was actually Shakespeare's. Given the doubt, why not just replace the image with a better sourced version? The best one I can find is in the .pdf document from the National Archives, although they make strong copyright assertions and want to charge reproduction fees. -- Solipsist 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was probably taken from here: www.pdimages.com/01520.html-ssi Paul B 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing here to doubt. This is not a signature by "Shakespeare." It is a fake. -BJ

How strange - it's all over the web. Anyway, I've replaced it with a 'real' signature (the one from the will that says 'by me William Shakespeare' (just to be really clear!)). The Singing Badger 16:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good. So, although my motives have been recriminated, and my comments attacked as "tendentious," they have at least had the salutary effect that this Wikipedia page is no longer a public laughingstock for presenting a hoax as a fact.

-BJ

Bacon History

After checking some details added to the Francis Bacon article, I decided to update a couple of the reference links on this page. Someone might want to follow up on the link to http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html. A note at the top of that page says the article is from the 1911 Britannica. If that can be verified it might be an idea to bring the text into Wikipedia and update it with comments on some of the more recent books. -- Solipsist 07:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which Smith suggested Bacon?

The Bacon suggestion was first made by William Henry Smith in 1856, unfortunately there were two famous WH Smiths around at the time . I am sure it was the junior William Henry Smith (politician) due to the fact that the same WH smith became the first president of the BACONIANA society in 1886 [6] , when the senior William_Henry_Smith (businessman) was dead. GameKeeper 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stritmatter article

I removed the following because it doesn't explain what Stritmatter's argument actually is, and as such is rather unhelpful. If replaced, it would be better to offer a brief summary of his argument.

The utility of this theory of the poem's composition has recently been challenged, however, by Oxfordian writer Roger Stritmatter in a University of Tennessee Law Review article, "A Law Case in Verse: Venus and Adonis and the Authorship Question."

The Singing Badger 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Way to go, Singing Badger. We wouldn't want any citations to academic publications that contest the Stratfordian position in these hallowed wikipedia pages, would we?--BenJonson 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I've been adding to and rearranging this article quite a lot recently. Although I think Shakespeare was Shakespeare I've been trying to explain both sides clearly and fairly. I'd be grateful if others could check my work and ensure its accuracy. The Singing Badger 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Stratfordian codes

Refreshing though it is to see hidden cipher theories used to support Shakespeare's authorship, I don't think David Basch's article "Shakespeare Memorials To Friends [www.ziplink.net/~entropy/sha-mar2.pdf] makes a strong case, so the references to it as an authoritive source need to be altered. Paul B 17:20, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Pronoun confusion

Just reading here. The section beginning his life has a confusion, at least to someone not knowledgeable on the subject:

"He [Shakespeare] is believed to have divided his time between London and Stratford, and to have retired there in 1613 before his death in 1616. His father, and apparently at least one of his [elder or younger Shakespeare?] daughters, were illiterate." 69.194.28.81 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It means Shakespeare's daughters. I'll fix it. The Singing Badger 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From Paris to Spain

I find the following passage rather perplexing:

As for All's Well That Ends Well it has been pointed out that the Pyrenees were infested with bandits, so that the preferred route to Spain was indeed across the Italian Alps, and then by sea; water transport, as witnessed in Arthur Throckmortons's unpublished continental diary, was always the preferred mode of transport at the time (see Ralegh and the Throckmortons by A.L. Rowse, London 1962).

Yes, I can see that sea-travel may preferred, but that does not explain why one would go via Italy. I thought the Italian Alps were also "infested with bandits". Why avoid one bandit-infested area for another one, just for the sake of a longer journey and a sea-trip to boot. The evidence quoted simply says that ships were "the preferred mode of transport", not that travelling over the Alps was preferred to travelling over the Pyrenees. However I haven't read Rowse's book, so don't know if this citation is disingenuous or not. Paul B 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, surely somebody in Roussillon would get a boat from the south of France, not Italy?! I had a look at Rowse's book but it's long and without a page reference I didn't know where to start. I have thus removed the sentence (it's preserved above) pending a better explanation of this subject. The Singing Badger 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Anti-Stradfordian

This article is certainly biased and NPOV. It states all the refuted claims of anti-Stradfordian, but it doesn't state the counter-argument posited by Stradfordians. For example, they mention that Shakespeare's hand is shaky. Stradfordians counter by stating it was a style known as "secretary hand", which is radically different from the "italic style" we know today. Mandel 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean it is POV. Where does the article say that S's "hand is shaky"? If you wish to add more pro-S arguments go ahead. Paul B 08:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And here I thought it was POV the other way. Starting with the allusion to "consiracy theories" and continuing with the characterization of one side as "Anti-Stratfordians" who "argue" things and the other side as "mainstream scholars" who "point out" things. The tone strikes me as one of the Stratfordians saying "we're reasonable and rational, and they're just a bunch of nut jobs." But I don't have enough invested in the issue to try to change it. Such is Wikipedia. Back to my watchlist.... Jwolfe 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, add more of the Pro-Stradfordian arguements. Personally, I think the arguments of this who think Shakespeare was someone else are rather weak so I'd welcome more on the other side.--Alabamaboy 12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the section Mandel mentioned about the 'shaky hand' but it's a commonly used argument so I will add it in (with a refutation). Jwolfe's comment on the 'argue' vs. 'point out' wording is a good one, and is an example of unconscious prejudice by myself and others; I will endeavour to make the wording more neutral. As for 'conspiracy theory', I think this is a defensible phrase: anti-Stratfordians argue that a conspiracy of silence concealed the true identity of Shakespeare in his day - in addition, they often claim that there is a conspiracy in modern academia to silence those who propound anti-Stratfordian views. That's my 2 cents. The Singing Badger 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving 'Academic authorship debates'

This page is longer than the recommended article size. I think the section 'Academic Authorship Debates' needs moving to its own page. Can anyone think of a good title for that page? The present one is rather questionable (not only academics are concerned with the issues). I think Shakespeare's collaborations might be better. Any opinions? The Singing Badger 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved it. The page is still too long though. Maybe separate pages on Marlovian and Baconian theory are needed. The Singing Badger 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just published a book on the Baconian Theory. If the administrator is happy to set up the page, I will happily (with my good friend QBrute) develop it and make an effort to contact other authors so that their views are accurately represented. barryispuzzled

You don't need to ask permission, you can do it yourself. Read Starting a new page for details. You'll need to try to write in such a way that you represent the views of those who disagree with the conclusions drawn in your own book, but have fun! The Singing Badger 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences

I removed the following because it's simply a list, without an explanation of what, if any, new information these people presented. These sections on the candidates need to be concise because they're just summaries. I put them in the bibliography at the bottom. Maybe add them to Oxfordian theory? The Singing Badger 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Another direct result of Ogburn's book was the 1989 Frontline documentary, The Shakespeare Mystery, a close look at the Oxford case narrated by Al Austin and Judy Woodruff. A recent exponent of de Vere's case is Mark Anderson, in his 2005 book "Shakespeare" By Another Name.

Mark Anderson

An anonymous user keeps adding prominent references to Mark Anderson's recent Oxfordian book "Shakespeare" By Another Name (2005). The reason I keep removing them is that there are numerous books about Oxford, and there is no reason to single out this one book at the beginning of this article. The anon user claims that Anderson's book is the first popular biography of Oxford in 85 years and thus warrants special treatment. In fact, Joseph Sobran's Alias Shakespeare was published only 8 years ago. The book thus only deserves a special mention in this article if it has transformed the field of Oxfordian studies as much as Charlton Ogburn did. I recommend that the anon user place the reference in the longer article, Oxfordian theory. The Singing Badger 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are numerous prominent Oxfordians and Stratfordians and to single out a reltaive newcomer looks like advertising to me. -- Cecropia 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not advertising to list Anderson's book as an important contemporary source; the book is the most readable and intelligent book written on the authorship question in the last ten years. I can say this, because I've read the others. Sobran's book certainly did not "transform the field of Oxfordian studies as much as Charlton Ogburn did." It is well written but entirely derivative in content. If, on the other hand, anon claimed that Anderson's book was the first popular biography in 85 years, that is certainly an overstatement, unless one defines the word "biography" with tendentious narrowness, so I would certainly support editing out such a phrase.--BenJonson 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

The following excerpt needs a citation (or so it says)

"In 1957, William F. Friedman, considered by many to be the greatest cryptologist of all time[citation needed], and his wife Elizebeth, also a cryptologist noted for her US Government work on "rum runners" ciphers [3] published a refutation of the cryptogram theories, in particular the Baconian theories. They argued that the messages claimed to have been encrypted in the texts by one (or both) of the authors were entirely implausible cryptographically and in some cases impossible."

Im not sure how to add it to the references list but The codebreakers, the comprehensive history of secret communication from ancient times to the internet - David Kahn (revised edition 1996) ISBN 0684831309 states on page 21 "Friedman was (and is) the worlds greatest cryptologist". I hope this can help. As im not that frequently on the english language wiki, questions are better served on my dutch discussion page which can be found at nl:Overleg gebruiker:Khx023 - Khx023 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! The Singing Badger 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to you for going through the tedious process of writing out the full citations. I was far too lazy. Paul B 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything to procrastinate real work. :) The Singing Badger 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Too Many External Links

The external links section of this article is growing way, way too massive and needs to be trimmed along the lines that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Most of these links appear to be linkspam and little more. Any issue if we cut them down to a handful of useful links. In addition, any book that is NOT a reference should not be listed in the external links. If a book IS a reference, then it should be listed in the reference section. Either way, though, all books should have any promotional link to Amazon.com or other places deleted. Comments?--Alabamaboy 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• 100% agree. I started reading through this stuff yesterday. Some of it is great and some is useless. I see the Singing Badger has started on this exercise. AndyJones 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did 'Orthodox' and 'Baconian' but the wiki was being slow so I got bored. Might have a go later... The Singing Badger 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if you're bored why don't you sing a little and then come back and badger some people? :) BTW, do you think badgers will replace ferrets as the new "in" pet? -- Cecropia 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Finished now. I only removed those sites that were purely promotional; sites that were promotional but also included substantial information remain; I think that's fair enough. The Singing Badger 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge "List of people theorized to have written Shakespeare"

• I vote yes to merging. It's not a long article. AndyJones 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah. It could be longer, but doesn't need to be a separate article until it is. The Singing Badger 13:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, and even if we listed the 63 people mentioned by Mitchell it wouldn't swamp this article. AndyJones 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge.--Alabamaboy 14:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Gday. Anonomous guest here- I vote no to merging, but I would, however, love to see the list far more complete than it is. In the Shakespearean Authorship page, there's a reference to 'over 50 more' authors, which aren't actually listed anywhere in Wikipedia, which is very frustrating and annoying and whatnot... It'd be very nice to have something like a definitive list on the page, and keep it seperate from the other pages.

Overhaul

This page is being flagged as too long. I therefore did a big overhaul today. I shortened the sections on Oxford and Marlowe by moving the more detailed information to Oxfordian theory and Marlovian theory respectively. My concept is that this page should primarily be concerned with the general anti-Stratfordian ideas (i.e. should there be an authorship debate at all?), and the sections on Oxford, Bacon and Marlowe on this page should be summaries of the basic arguments for and against, so that the details of those arguments can be set out at greater length on the separate pages. The page is still being flagged as too long, unfortunately, but it's better than it was (38 Kb as opposed to 44). The previous state of the page can be studied here : [7]; in case anyone dislikes what I have done. The Singing Badger 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Malcom X? 50 others?

The article reads, in part, "Other candidates proposed include William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby; Sir Edward Dyer; or Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (sometimes with his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Philip Sidney, and her aunt Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, as co-authors); and at least fifty others, including Queen Elizabeth (based on a supposed resemblance between a portrait of the Queen and the engraving of Shakespeare that appears in the First Folio). Malcolm X argued that Shakespeare was actually King James I". (emphasis supplied). Please could someone give authority for the two emphasised propositions, or I shall delete them. (Great article by the way. For what it is worth I don't think it is too long.) --165.146.132.30 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't logged in: --Adam Brink 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea about the number of proposed candidates, but Mr X apparently expressed scepticism concerning Shakespeare's authorship on the grounds that if Shakespeare were such a good writer why didn't King James ask him to help out with his Bible? Mr. X appears on the Oxfordian website among the Honour Roll of Sceptics for this great thought.[8] Why James would want a translator with no known theological training - and with small Latin and less Greek - Mr. X does not say. Perhaps the story that Shakespeare was James has been extrapolated from this. Paul B 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, just to reiterate with some amplification: Ben Jonson says this:

"And though thou hadst small Latin and Less Greek /For names to praise you I would not seek..."

It is a matter of interpretation, not fact, to state that Jonson is saying Shakespeare had small Latin and less Greek. Many readers take this is as the protasis in a contrary-to-fact statement, meaning "even if you had small Latin and Less Greek..." I realize that you, like many, may never have considered the matter in this light. But having thoroughly combed through Jonson's work for parallel phrases, I can assure you that the comparative linguistic evidence strongly supports the latter interpretation. In any case, the critical point is not which interpretation is correct. The critical point is that it is an erroneous procedure to quote Jonson out of context to make it sound like he is saying something he very well might not be. Proof of the contrary position is not required. Although the notion that Jonson said that Shakespeare had small Latin and less Greek is ubiquitous, it is not based on valid evidence or reasoning and should be avoided on a webpage that strives to comine accuracy with balance.--BenJonson 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked up Mr. X's Autobiography, and yes, it seems that he thought it was James wot done it:

They say that from 1604 to 1611, King James got poets to translate, to write the Bible. Well, if Shakespeare existed, he was then the top poet around. But Shakespeare is nowhere reported connected with the Bible. If he existed, why didn't King James use him? And if he did use him, why is it one of the world's best kept secrets? I know that many say that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare. If that is true, why would Bacon have kept it secret? Bacon wasn't royalty, when royalty sometimes used the nom de plume because it was "improper" for royalty to be artistic or theatrical. What would Bacon have had to lose? Bacon, in fact, would have had everything to gain. In the prison debates I argued for the theory that King James himself was the real poet who used the nom de plume Shakespeare. King James was brilliant. He was the greatest king who ever sat on the British throne. Who else among royalty, in his time, would have had the giant talent to write Shakespeare's works? It was he who poetically "fixed" the Bible -- which in itself and its present King James version has enslaved the world.

Paul B 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Turning to the question of 50 others, John Mitchell lists 63 people speculated to have written some or all of Shakespeare, on pp.37-38 of "Who Wrote Shakespeare" (1999 Thames & Hudson Ltd., London ISBN 0-500-28133-0). AndyJones 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So that's what they get up to in prison. Thank you for the excellent response! --Adam Brink 08:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anwar

I believe its tottaly irrelevant to mention what ,mr anwar says about Shakepearean authorship..Any one could come up with such weird claims which has no basis at all, and i dont think wikipedia is the place for that kind of jokes..Mr Anwar or the so called arab leader ,whom he quoted are definitely not scholars..And its only made this great article a silly one by quoting them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs)

The story appears to be a sort of Muslim urban myth. See here [9]. Other sources suggest that Qaddafi's reference to the story was simply a joke. [10] For what I can gather the idea does seem to have originated in the 19th century as a serious suggestion by an idiosyncratic Arab intellectual called Ahmad Faris al-Shidyaq (1804-87)[11] Paul B 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oxford's faked death

The following is copied from my talk page:

Dear Mr. Barlow,

As a source of this claim of Mr. Streitz, who is a political theorist and writer, I have only seen him make the argument in his review pages at Amazon.com. A link might be provided to these reviews. They are informal reviews written by customers. I do not consider Mr. Streitz to be an able literary theorist, though I am interested in his theory about Oxford's death. Oxfordianism must come to terms with Freudianism, either by alligning itself with Freud or by breaking with his view to form a new theory of biography and sexual trauma. The Wikipedia article is a helpful venue but the question remains whether there is room in this tiny section to discuss such controversies as the incestuous sexual life of Elizabeth the first and Henry VIII and the treatment of these things in the plays of Shakespeare. Second, it would have to be recognized that the plays present a salutary philosophy such as that of Epicurus or Buddhism. Such a view of Shakespeare if properly conceived would be nothing short of a revolution in academe and theory in general.

Yours, Chris Gontar

reply - I don't think that Amazon reviews constitute publication in the sense that is relevant to Wikipedia.

I agree.--BenJonson 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Oxfordianism "must come to terms with Freudianism". I was not aware that Elizabeth was invloved in an "incestuous sexual relationship"! The idea that the plays articulate a distinctive "philosophy" was first expressed, I think, by Delia Bacon. Can you provide citations? Paul B 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your attribution of the origin of this view to Delia Bacon is, on my understanding, correct.--BenJonson 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, please note that Amazon.com reviews do not constitute published work (because they have not been through any editing process), and as such do not belong on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Original research. The Singing Badger 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by QBrute

QBrute, User:172.142.56.12 has recently made numerous changes to the article. Some of them may be defensible, but many seem to be attempts at sneakily slanting the article toward the anti-Stratfordian case (e.g. altering 'Shakespeare' to 'Shakspere' and then deleting the sentence that presents evidence against the significance of such spellings). Just for the record, this was the state of the page before these edits. I don't have time to check them all now. The Singing Badger 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. The article as I met with it was not written as an attempt to present the reader with facts but to present an attack against anti-Stratfordians. It is completely justified to refer to the Stratford man as Shakspere for that was his original documented name. He has equal standing to all authorship candidates, the task being to show that a particular candidate was Shakespeare the author and clarity prevails with this distinction. Several inaccuracies were present. It was stated that Bacon was not alive when the First Folio appeared in 1623 when he was. The definition of Shakespeare authorship was given as a "conspiracy theory" implying that in every case, a group of authors or conspirators shared a secret. The thrust of the anti-Stratfordian case is misrepresented: it is not to show that Shakspere was illiterate but to cast a reasonable enough doubt on his claim to justify considering an alternative candidate. In support of a Stratfordian point, what kind of argument is it to simply invoke the fact that a certain view is agreed upon by most scholars? This is not evidence but an assertion that if the academics say it is true then it must be. For an encyclopedic article I found the judgmental comments and under-representation of alternative views distasteful. In short, this was a gratuitous rant against anti-Stratfordians with no attempt at a balance which it now possesses.

If you find errors and distortions it is of course right to correct them, and I'm with you on that. This page should present both sides of the case fairly. If commonly-held viewpoints are missing, they have the right to be there. But you should not assume they have been censored, it's just that no-one has included them yet. Looking over your edits, I see that some of them are fine, but others are clearly designed to lead the reader the other way. For example, unexplained deletion of material, unexplained removal of documented information that doesn't support the anti-Stratfordian position, POV descriptions of books and and bizarre unsupported claims such as "Henry Chettle (masquerading as Robert Greene), Ben Jonson, and John Marston doubted his authorship credentials" (really? when? says who?). I want to assume good faith, but I believe you need to read the Wikipedia principles of no original research, of verifiability, and of neutral point of view. At the very least, give reasons for your changes in the edit summary box. You know a lot about Bacon, clearly, and it would be great to work with you, but you need to understand these principles. The Singing Badger 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. The use of judgmental statements such as "bizarre" is not science but you can ask me to support my assertions by all means. I will happily provide a Word document link in the article to the Chettle/Marston/Jonson argument. The reference to the Northumberland MS in the Bacon section is deleted because it is a weak argument and proves nothing. For example, Bacon and Shakespeare as different men could simply have used the same scrivener. Line 20, there is no cunning in changing the Stratford man's name to Shakspere because I assert that he was also documented as Shakespeare. As stated, it is a necessary distinction to provide clarity. Line 20, he was "referred to specifically as a writer" 23 times. No he was not. Nowhere on any quarto does it say "Willam Shakespeare of Stratford". It says "William Shakespeare". Was this Shakspere, Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford ...? "No contemporary document connects any other person with the plays". This is a sweeping statement and it is wrong. The Gesta Grayorum gives a commentary on the Gray's Inn Revels 1595-5 where the Comedy of Errors was performed. There is evidence that Bacon wrote it and in it there is a complicated "greater lessens the smaller" metaphor in the last paragraph that appears both in Bacon's speech on the Union of the Kingdom of England and Scotland (1603) and Act 5, Scene 1 in the Merchant of Venice , predating both. This single example is enough to justify deletion.

Do you see how you are being equally judgemental? You have decided something 'proves nothing', so you delete it without making any explanation. Sometimes you could well be right, but if you at the very least explained your changes in the edit summary box, your changes would be easier to evaluate.

To answer some specific points:

1. Referring to Shakespeare as 'Shakspere' is a tactic used mostly by Oxfordians to suggest that the man from Stratford spelled his name differently to the author of the plays. This theory of different spelling has been comprehensively disproven, as the source you deleted demonstrates. Regardless of your own reasons, the use of 'Shakspere' is misleading to the reader. 'Shakespeare of Stratford' and 'the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare' are more long-winded but more neutral terms.
2. Shakespeare does not have 'equal standing' to the other candidates. His name is on the front cover of most of his works, and he is thus the prima facie candidate. The job of anti-Stratfordians is to disprove this prima facie case.
3. The case against Shakespeare is always presented as a secret, protected by silence, and/or by codes. It is thus a conspiracy theory. Maybe this seems like loaded term, but some conspiracy theories have proven true.
4. The article did not claim that Shakespeare had to be proven illiterate, it said the fundamental question is whether he was incapable of doing so (i.e. because the works were too sophisticated for a middle class Warwickshire man).
5. The 'sweeping statement' was badly worded, I agree. It should have said 'directly connects'. Certainly, some documents can be interpreted as connecting other writers with the plays. But none directly do so.
6. Shakespeare was referred to as a writer because his name appears on the title pages of quartos. Those plays were performed by the King's Men. The King's Men included an actor called William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was that actor-dramatist because he died in Stratford willing money to that company. Denying this is unusual even among anti-Stratfordians.
7. All statements must have citations. And these citations cannot be your own original research. They must be published (not 'Word documents').
8. I know the article isn't perfectly sourced yet. If you find an uncited statement that needs a source, add {{fact}} after it, and a citation request label will appear, to alert the reader. The Singing Badger 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence against Shakspere

QBrute. I disagree with point 2. I want to see your evidence. Shakspere could not have written The Tempest because he could not have had access to Strachey's secret letter. He could not have gained entry to Gray's Inn to either write or perform Comedy of Errors because the Inns of Court had a policy at the time (as did Oxford and Cambridge Universities) of excluding outsiders. They also did not need external writers because most of the later dramatist were resident there and all too willing to oblige with a play. Titus and Andronicus according to Edward Ravenscroft was not his but brought by a PRIVATE AUTHOR to be acted. In these cases he is less than equal to Oxford and Bacon (who had strong Inns of Court connections). Did you write this article? Point 7. My work is published. But what difference does it make? An argument should be judged on its own merits not on whether or not is it published! Point 6. I do not doubt that Shakspere claimed authorship by placing his name on the work. But with reasonable doubt expressed with regard to Shakspere as author, the Stratfordian must then offer proof for authorship as every other candidate must. For example, where are his letters and manuscripts against which stylistic comparisons can be made? This can be done successfully for Bacon because we have his Promus and his published work which carry striking parallels with the Shakespeare work.

Lots of people work on this article (which is a work in progress, like all of Wikipedia). I'm just trying to summarize the reasons why not everyone is an anti-Stratfordian. 'Stratfordians' do not accept that there is reasonable doubt about Shakespeare. In regards to your points there, (a) Cite a source saying that Strachey's letter was secret (and by the way not everyone agrees that Strachey's letter was used to write The Tempest, Stratfordians and antis included) (b) Cite a source saying that Inns of Court excluded outsiders: Twelfth Night was performed at the Middle Temple Hall by the King's Men, so this seems unlikely (c) Have you read most academic plays of that time? They're really boring. I'd rather have Shakespeare even if he was an outsider :) (d) Yes, Ravenscroft did say that. Is it true? Who knows. Many people have tried to apologize for Titus Andronicus over the years... (e) Why should we expect Shakespeare's letters to have survived? This is no evidence against him. He was a less important man than Bacon.

Yes, in theory work should be judged on its merits. But Wikipedia's policy is gto summarize published work, not permit everyone to say anything. Read no original research and verifiability pages (I'm not accusing you, just making the point).

The fundamental point here is: please cite your sources and explain your reasons for changes made.The Singing Badger 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. All your answers can be found in Cockburn, Nigel, The Bacon Shakespeare Question and one of your own, Stanley Wells (Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, p.470) seems to think The Tempest was based on Strachey's letter. Since this authorship question has provoked so much debate over the years, I think that all candidates (including Shakspere) should be treated on an equal footing and have their case presented. In this way, the evidence regarding the whole issue can be fairly weighed. Of course, part of the case for Shakspere is that his name is on the work. I think it is irrelevant to imply that since x scholars agree or disagree on a certain point then the case is established (e.g. phrases like "most scholars agree" frequently appeared in the article). The weight of an argument depends on how well it accounts for the known facts not on how many scholars subscribe to it. My research does not uncover the name of the company that played Twelfth Night at the Middle Temple Hall in Feb 1602 (and John Manningham, a student present at the event does not record the company in his diary). Where did you get the idea from that the King's Men played it? You respond to the Ravenscroft testimony with "Is it true? Who knows." It's an admissible report of contemporary testimony. Do you only admit evidence you like the look of? I am now satisfied that the article reads fluently, is non-judgmental, and has a reasonable balance of views.

'Touche! I guess we should all think first and talk later. By the way, Ravenscroft says Titus was brought by a "private author to be acted and he [Shakespeare] only added some master-touches". In other words, Ravenscroft regards Shakespeare as a master-dramatist... Anyway, I will go through each of your changes and keep what seems fair. If you make errors, I'll correct them. If I make errors, you correct them. That's how it works... and it never ends... The Singing Badger 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravenscroft is not "contemporary testimony". He thought that Titus was a heap of rubbish, so quoted some unnamed old bloke who supposedly knew that Shakespeare just a added a few bits to some dross written by someone else. The influence of the Strachey letter is widely, but not universally, accepted, but I know of no evidence that it was in any sense "secret". Paul B 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is this claptrap about Terence? As far as I know no-one actually thinks that "Scipio" (which Scipio anyway?) wrote Terence's plays! And how could Cicero have witnessed this, since he wasn't even born for another hundred years? Paul B 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Ravenscroft, who is not contemporary, is reporting contemporary testimony and if a witness reported what another at the scene of the crime told him this would be admissible in court. Regarding the Strachey letter, if you take a look at the reference in the Bacon section you will see the directive issued to Sir Thomas Gates, governor of the Virginia colony. The phrases "no one actually thinks" and "not universally accepted" are not arguments just a head count of who agrees or disagrees. Terence belonged to the literary group headed by the Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. The charge put to Terence that he received assistance in the composition of his plays was not defended by him. For example, see http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/terence001.html . I'm wondering here if "witness" requires a medieval interpretation such as "opinion".

OK, I've checked the original. Ascham says that two plays were published as Terence's but were really written by Scipio and Laelius. There is no suggestion in Ascham's text that Terence didn't write any plays, just that two Roman aristocrats published under his name. This is certainly good evidence that an Elizabethan writer thinks such actions by aristocrats are plausible - but it tells us nothing reliable about Terence himself. Paul B 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a witness reporting what someone else told him he'd seen is hearsay, and is not admissible in court. Ravencroft is saying that Titus is rubbish and so is unlikely to be by Shakespeare. His source is unnamed and quite possibly invented. Even if he's real, he could have been talking rubbish. We don't know. A head count of who agrees and disagrees is relevant to Wikipedia because we report on scholarly consensus and apportion "due weight" to points of view in relation to their status within that community. The quotation from the directive tells us nothing about the letter, nor does it suggest that it was secret. It only says that letters may be "boxed up and sealed" and sent to the council first. There's no suggestion that this makes all communication secret or that the council will withold all letters it receives. Re Terence -receiving help is quite different from concealed authorship. I receive help from my wife with my writings - and vice versa. George Eliot received help from Lewes, but it's quite a different matter to say that Lewes wrote her novels. Paul B 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I think you're adding to Ravenscroft's testimony. Ravenscroft says "I have been told by someone anciently conversant with the stage that it was originally not his but brought by a private author to be acted". There is nothing in this to suggest the source is "quite possibly invented" or that Ravenscroft was "talking rubbish" - this is just an expression of your hope! Testimony works by accepting what people say as true unless there is a reason not to. Proof in court relies on the agreement of several testimonies. I can happily develop the point about the secret letter. First, I think taking care what "relacions" [accounts] come into England strongly suggests a policy of censorship. It was not in the interests of the Virginia Company to make this letter public because it detailed the murder and insurrection in the colony and council members wanted to both attract new investors and uphold the value of their own shares. It was later watered down for publication as A True Declaration of the State of the Colony of Virginia (registered 8 November 1610). In fact, the Strachey letter only came to light in 1616 (after the first performance of The Tempest) when it was found among the recently deceased Richard Hakluyt's papers (whose name was on the First Virginia Charter). In your added article piece on Terence the impression is created that Terence lived in Elizabethan England especially since you talk about what was "commonplace in Elizabethan England". Perhaps, it should read "Roman dramatist Terence" and the point changed to what Elizabethans thought. I am no expert on Roman literature so I leave you the last word on Terence.

It's not my "hope". since its largely irrelevant to Shakespearean authorship in the sense in which you are using the word, though it is relevant to the debates about collaboration. It's a widespread view that many of Shakespeare's early works were collaborative. Ravenscroft argument is consistent with this. Still, his source is very tenuous. As I said, it's some unnamed old bloke who is supposedly "conversant with the stage" speaking nearly a century after the play was written. And there is reason to be suspicious of R's alleged informant, because R has a particular POV, as we say, and because "some bloke I met said..." is always pretty poor evidence. Kathman discusses the likelihood of Shakespeare's access to the Strachey letter. [12]

Regardless of whether Ravenscroft's source was reliable, Ravenscroft is describing Shakespeare as an expert dramatist touching up the work of an inferior amateur. It thus doesn't support the anti-Stratfordian position, which is that WS was the talentless frontman for a secret playwright. The Singing Badger 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute(to Paul Barlow). Naughty! With "nearly a century" you misrepresent a fact to fit your viewpoint. Ravenscoft's quote is from 1687, 76 years after the first known performance of The Tempest, so it is not impossible that a witness to the Titus handover was still alive. As I said, you are adding to Ravenscroft with "his source is very tenuous" instead of having the humility to admit that this is fair evidence against Shakspere authoring a play that appeared in the First Folio. You are also ignoring a fact to fit your viewpoint because as I have also said, it would not have been in the interests of the Virginia council members to divulge the contents of Strachey's letter. It is pure speculation - an unwarranted extrapolation from the coincidence of Shakspere's name with another on a business document - that Shakspere knew members of the Council well enough for them to exchange this information. (I have many documents in my possession bearing my name and that of others I have had little or no acquaintance with. My landlord whom I see once every six months has his name alongside mine on an important tenancy agreement but that does not mean I would exchange confidential information with him.) I recommend that you refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions from an insufficiency of factual evidence. It is "a widespread view" is not evidence. Are you David Kathman? (to Singing Badger) Ravencroft's own opinion about Shakspere's "master touches" many years after his death has no more potency than my neighbour's. However, his report of a contemporary witness account has an altogether different status.

Naughty? We were discussing Titus, so what's the first known performance of the Tempest got to do with it? Titus is dated to the early 1590s, published in 1594. 1687 is 93 years after the latest possible date. You don't get much nearer to a century. Try not to make false accusations. Paul B 01:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. OK, I'm tired, it's 2am here, I looked up the wrong play. A thought that occurs to me, though, is that Ravenscroft's testimony is 71 years after Shakspere's death so it is not impossible that the "some anciently conversant with the stage" was/were alive in Shakspere's lifetime. Nevertheless, I think that it would have had greater weight if Ravenscroft had named his source.

QBrute. The following was added to the Overview. I deleted it. "For instance, Ben Jonson knew Shakespeare personally, reacted to him in often-passionate ways, and yet never appears to have doubted his authorship of his works, at least if his words are not wrenched out of context. Moreover, the fact that Shakespeare did not receive a university education, which is one of the main reasons that doubts of his authorship were born, should be considered in light of the fact that Jonson, one of the greatest classical scholars of the age, also never graduated from university. The orthodox view posits that consipiracy theories may well have grown out of the prejudices of the undemocratic past, which assumed that only noblemen or the university educated could write such impressive works, though such theories have taken on a life of their own." This does not serve the balance of the article nor is it intended to inform but is a blatant attempt to use the Wikipedia article as a forum to propagate the Stratfordian position. The line "yet never appears to have doubted his authorship" is misleading because he raised doubts about the quality of Shakspere's writing and the level of his wit. With offensive phrases like "at least if his words are not to be wrenched out of context" and "prejudices of the undemocratic past" someone is attempting to restore the article to its original rant against anti-Stratfordians.

QBrute. I agree with JWolfe's earlier comments in Pro-Anti-Stratfordian with regard to the reference to "conspiracy theories". In whatever way one tries to analyse the content of this phrase, it creates a negative "feeling" in the reader with its connotations of paranoia, mental instability and absence of reason. I am aware that one or two contributors have a hidden agenda to use this article as a platform to propagate their Stratfordian views and have no interest in preserving a balanced article. I am committed to serving the impartial reader by ensuring that all views are well represented and that the article is not cleverly slanted with well-chosen phrases to imply that only Stratfordian views are reasonable. I can identify one of these people as having the username Paul B (also uses AngusMclellan) from the article edit history. I notice also that the style of employing phrases that imply that only Stratfordian views are reasonable is used by David Kathman (e.g. this example is taken from his website Introduction [[13]] "Yet professional Shakespeare scholars ... generally find Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing." I wonder if as Paul B. he has no intention of letting Oxfordians discuss them here either.) My suspicion is supported by an article from the columnist Joe Sobran who has given his impressions of David Kathman's subliminal messaging methods [[14]].

These articles are meant to be neutral, expressing all major points of view. If you find distortions, correct them, but don't introduce your own, which is what you were doing.

'Subliminal messaging'?! Sobran's accusation is that Kathman claims to look at 'historical evidence' but ignores the 'fact' that the Sonnets are coded depictions of the Earl of Oxford. But interpretations of hidden meanings in poems can never be regarded simply as 'historical evidence'. Kathman discusses straightforward evidence that does not require 'interpretation': title pages, records of performances, epitaphs, etc. etc. If a book cover says "by William Shakespeare" that is straightforward evidence that must be acknowledged and disproven if one believes it to be untrue. Sobran thinks it is straightfowardly true that the Sonnets depict the Earl of Oxford, so he regards them too as historical evidence. But reading between the lines of a Sonnet is a very subjective thing: it's an interpretation, not a fact. Others have different interpretations - Marlovians read the Sonnets as depictions of Marlowe's relationships. Stratfordians either see them as depictions of Shakespeare's love-life, or else as simply fictional. The trouble with all these interpretations is that none can be easily proven or disproven because poetry is by its very nature open to multiple interpretations. So interpretations of the hidden meanings of poems are *not* the same as straightforward historical evidence. If Sobran has written an entire book on Oxford without even thinking about this difference, it's no wonder he's baffled by David Kathman, but it's also no wonder that real historians don't take him seriously.

If we have a hierachy, historical evidence comes first, below it is interpretation (which can be *useful*, but less conclusive), and then beneath that we have wilful misreading. You are deliberately *misreading* Ravenscroft. He says quite clearly that an old man told him 'Titus' was improved by Shakespeare after being given it by a "Private Author". You have decided that Ravenscroft misunderstood the old man who was actually saying something rather different. But how do you know this? Not from the words on the page. It's just wishful thinking on your part. The Singing Badger 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

18 plays

QBrute. I have read your Titus objection several times and still do not understand your point. I challenge the certainty of the assertion in the Shakespeare's Will section that "most of these 18 plays were indeed published by his fellow actors after his death" implying that they owned Shakespeare's unpublished and/or unperformed work thus accounting for their absence in the will. Did Shakspere the businessman simply write these plays and hand them over to the King's Men without attempting to profit from them? Surely no one believes that. If he sold them to the KM where is the documentary evidence? It is being assumed that since Heminge and Condell supplied eulogies to the First Folio then they must have owned ALL the plays but that is an addition to the facts. Now there is some evidence that Ben Jonson produced the FF. "... the men who made the folio for the press (and Jonson may well have been one of them) remade Shakespeare in Jonson's image. ... The scribes who prepared the copy for the Shakespeare folio abandoned the "light pointing" or "playhouse punctuation" of the quartos and adopted the so-called logical pointing that Jonson had employed in his Workes (1616). The extensive use of parentheses, semicolons and end-stopped lines in the 1623 folio owes more to Jonson's example than to Shakespeare's habits of composition." Riggs, David, Ben Jonson: A Life (Harvard University Press: 1989), p.276. So the following possibility arises. Another man possessed these 18 plays, employed Jonson to produce the FF, and used his friendship with the King's Men to obtain the rights to publish the plays they owned. Heminge and Condell were promised the royalties (and they DO urge the public to buy in one eulogy). The Cryptograms section of the article has an interpretation of Jonson's opening FF eulogy that coincides with this view. Jonson uses the phrase "insolent Greece or haughtie Rome" in his second eulogy but in a later work says that Bacon "hath filled up all the numbers [verses] and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughtie Rome ... so that he may be named and stand as the mark and acme of our language." Jonson, Ben, Timber or Discoveries (Cassell: 1889), p.60-1. (I notice that he does not say that Shakspere of Stratford stands as the mark of our language.) I cannot of course provide all my evidence for Bacon in this short space so I confine myself to the following point. It is not certain that the King's Men owned these 18 plays.

William Shakespeare was an actor and sharer in the King's Men. In other words, he did own the plays but he owned them jointly with about 12 or so other actors (including Heminges and Condell). That's how all playing companies worked at the time: for a good book about this, check out The Shakespearean Stage by Andrew Gurr. He thus made plenty of cash out of the plays: after every performance, the sharers split the profits, so Shakespeare the businessman was no doubt very pleased with himself. When he died, they would have remained in the company's property. There's no mystery about any of this. As for Jonson, I dare say it's possible that Jonson edited the plays for the Folio (although Riggs' viewpoint would be contested by most bibliographers who find the Folio texts a mixed bag of very different provenances - does Riggs really mean all the plays or just a few?). Since Jonson himself professed friendship with Shakespeare this seems a simple reason why Heminges and Condell would have asked him to help assemble the Folio. And as for the Bacon quote - was Bacon averse to swiping the occasional good line from a fellow writer? The Singing Badger 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. If you reread this you'll see that this is Jonson's quote not Bacon's. How do you know that these plays were submitted to the King's Men? For a moderator you do not come across as impartial! You're not a friend of Kathman's are you?

I apologise for misreading! But Jonson repeating himself is even less remarkable. And I'm not a moderator, there are no moderators. You and I are equal. The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Regarding the "apples and oranges" piece in the Shakespeare's will section. One of the issues is whether or not Shakspere, assuming these 18 plays were in his sole possession, would want his family to profit from them by leaving them in his will. Another motive could have been to engrave his name in history (possibly Bacon's motive). Yes, libraries (in particular Sir Thomas Bodley) sneered at poetry but quartos were being published and profit being made.

The dates do not tie in with Ravenscoft's source being contemporary so it's doubtful that he's reporting contemporary testimony. Interesting debate though. Very interesting. It's about time someone smart kicked this article into shape cos a while ago it was very Stratfordian POV. By the way, I work at the Bodleian library (mention of Sir Thomas Bodley). Signed, Bodleyman.

I agree with you Bodleyman, fresh perspectives are always helpful and this is very interesting.:) The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we know the 18 unpublished plays were submitted to the King's Men? Well, in 1611 Simon Forman recorded seeing Macbeth, The Winter's Tale, and Cymbeline at the Globe (which was where the King's Men performed). That's 3 of them. In 1613, the Globe burned down during a performance of Henry VIII. That's another. Measure for Measure was performed at Whitehall by "his majesties players" (i.e. the King's Men) according to the Revels Accounts. That's five. Richard Burbage, chief tragedian of the King's Men is recorded to have performed the role of the "grieved Moor" - if that's Othello, we have a sixth. That still leaves 12 of the plays whose performance venue cannot be proven absolutely, but we can see a pretty obvious pattern here, especially if we add in all the other published plays that were written for the Chamberlain's or King's Men. Furthermore, Shakespeare was the chief dramatist of the King's Men: such dramatists usually wrote for only one company (see G.E. Bentley, The Profession of Dramatist, p. 120 for evidence). Of course all of this assumes that Shakespeare was the author. Presumably QBrute is concerned that this is a biased assumption. But think of it this way:

1. . If Shakespeare was not the true author, we would not expect to find plays in his will.
2. . If Shakespeare was the true author, we would still not expect to find them in his will (because they would have been owned by the company)
3. . Their absence thus proves nothing either way.

The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I'm sorry but I had to laugh when I saw the wholesale changes made to the page! It's like suggesting to a small boy that he smashed a window and, angry at being found out, he smashes another right in front of you, confirming what you thought all along! I have one suggestion. If Paul B. and The Singing Badger are going to use this article to propagate David Kathman's views it should be renamed "David Kathman's authorship theory" and not retain a title that misleads visitors into thinking that it represents all views and that the evidence has been carefully argued and checked.

Wow. That's a remarkable response. Rather depressing too, since I had actually replaced some passages written by you that someone else had deleted. I thought some of the stuff you added was useful and was trying to incorporate it better. Now my faith in human nature has been trodden into the mud. Anyway, I suggest that anyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions about the behaviour of the participants. The Singing Badger 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. ... and you change one comma on this page and I'll change it all back again! Good game!

Mr Qbrute, I owe you a huge apology. I was studying an older version of the article to compare it with your changes, and I must have inadvertently saved the old version instead of the current version. Since we appear to be on very bad terms by this point, I suspect you will not believe this. If you study the edit log, you will see, however, that I was indeed trying to feed in your material which I thought someone else had deleted. I think this demonstrates my sincerity. Once again, I apologise profusely for angering you with my stupid mistake. The Singing Badger 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. OK, you changed it all back. So I forgive you! Big hug! Let's continue working together to improve this article. Despite appearances, I respect the points you bring up because they help me clarify my own ideas. At least, you're willing to debate them which is refreshing.

An olive branch. My thoughts exactly. The Singing Badger 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I read your piece on the 18 plays. The point as I see it is this: Are there any plays at all that were unperformed and unpublished? There only needs to be one. So how about Coriolanus or Timon of Athens? So would we expect the King's Men to automatically own this or would Shakspere have retained it? Assuming Shakspere wrote only for the King's Men there is a difference between the individual and the company which curiously in law is treated as a separate individual. (I was once part owner of a company to produce short films. I wrote many scripts some of which we made and so became owned by the company. The rest still exist on my computer and were never seen by anyone. Would the company own them if I died tomorrow? No way! They're mine! I owned shares - actually worth pigsh*t - in the company but the company had no rights over my personal property.) This is not my only problem with his will. Take a look at Bacon's will in Spedding, James, (Ed.), Life and Letters [of Bacon], Vol. 7, (1872) p.230. He wrote it himself. He didn't need to go to the expense of employing a lawyer. With the wealth of legal phrases in Shakespeare I don't get why Shakspere didn't write his will himself. It's evidently a standard will written by a lawyer and I expect it to indicate in some way that he was a writer but it doesn't. As for Jonson repeating himself ... he's describing Bacon as "the mark [point to be aimed at] of our language" in the context of "filling up the numbers" (writing verse) - Bacon not Shakspere of Stratford even though Jonson worked on the FF! Not only that, but he's using a figure "performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughtie Rome" which he uses in Shakespeare's First Folio in referring to the drama of the Greek and Roman civilisations. That surprised me when I first encountered it and it's one reason why I think his FF tributes are not to be taken at face value. My view is that if Bacon wrote Shakespeare then Jonson knew and was paid by him to organise the FF and keep quiet - he was later employed by Bacon in translating Bacon's Essays into latin. (Note also that the FF appeared at a time - 1623 - when Bacon was putting together his publications for posterity: he lost office in 1621, then we get History of the Reign of Henry VII, 1622; his masterwork De Augmentis Scientiarium, 1623; a treatise on war with Spain, 1624; followed by his latin version of the Essays, 1625; and he died in 1626. The FF appeared in this productive period. Why not in 1616 after Shakspere died or maybe just before?) I'd love to believe that Shakspere wrote the plays because it would save me a lot of work and there are other things I could do. The trouble is, the more I learn and think about the issue the odder it seems!

Unperformed plays. It's not easy to say what was performed and what wasn't. Performance records from the period are fragmentary. Yes, there are records of performances at court, and the printed quartos usually say something like 'as it has been diverse times performed at the Globe'. And sometimes we even get diary records like Simon Forman's or John Manningham's. But if we want a day-by-day account of what was on stage at the Globe, it doesn't exist: any such records were lost centuries ago. So, you're right that there's no record of Coriolanus or Timon being performed. But that doesn't mean they weren't. The question of who owned an unperformed play is therefore entirely hypothetical and I don't think it's possible to know the answer (although do try ploughing through Bentley's The Profession of Dramatist, there may be something about it in there). My assumption is that if WS wrote a play, he submitted it to the King's Men for performance. Did they reject any of them? We don't know. What happened to the playtext if they did? We don't know. The Singing Badger 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Will. There could be many reasons why he got a lawyer to write it. For example, he could have been dying: he hadn't written any poetry or drama for three years despite being only 52 years old, so he may well have been incapacitated. Without a time machine there are things we simply can't know, and I don't think it's fair to leap to conclusions.The Singing Badger 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bacon: I think what you're saying is this: (1) Jonson praised Shakespeare in the FF (2) Jonson used the same phrase in a later work when praising Bacon (3) Jonson regarded Bacon as the greatest of writers, and didn't say the same thing about Shakespeare. I can accept all this. I can't see why it's evidence that Jonson thought Bacon was Shakespeare. Jonson was bound to think Bacon a better writer than Shakespeare. Jonson was a classicist: he believed in the importance of classical learning, and in following the classical rules. Shakespeare didn't: his plays break all the Aristotelean rules that Jonson thought so important. It stands to reason that Jonson would admire a writer like Bacon more than a lasseiz-faire dramatist like Shakespeare. But thinking Shakespeare a lesser writer is not the same as thinking he didn't write the plays. Whenever Jonson criticized Shakespeare, he criticized the plays themselves, not the man. So why would Jonson hold his idol Bacon responsible for creating inferior plays? The Singing Badger 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I think we have a very different perception of what is probable based on how other humans would behave under similar circumstances. Do you really believe that a writer submits everything he has written? Talk to some writers and find out. Bacon felt he was dying when he wrote his first will, in fact he was bedridden, but it didn't deter him. Take a survey of people who have written wills. What percentage are too far gone to write a page of text when they sign it? Jonson is talking about Bacon writing verses and about the drama of Greece and Rome when Bacon has not explicitly published anything like this. So why is Jonson talking about it then and, in relation to verse writing, calling Bacon the mark of our language while borrowing a phrase from the FF? Doesn't this seem even 1% odd to you? What can I say? Get hold of a copy of Nigel Cockburn's book The Bacon Shakespeare Question or my colleague Barry Clarke's The Shakespeare Puzzle and take a look at the other historical evidence. These are both serious and up-to-date investigations into the case for Bacon. Then if you still think Shakspere did it ... fine! At least you checked out an alternative and reinforced your views. I don't know what else to suggest ... One thing that I am clear about. This article is written by democracy and I can argue points and present evidence until my teeth fall out but the democratic view is that Shakspere did it and inevitably that's the message this article will tend towards ... and that's why my section on Greene, Jonson and Marston (with citations) from the Overview has now gone ...

It hasn't gone, I just moved it to a section called 'Comments by contemporaries'. It would be great if you could fill this section out some more, the sentence about cryptic comments in the Folio remains ... cryptic. I moved them because I don't think specific arguments belong in an overview: in the overview I just introduced the basic principles about Shakespeare of Stratford, then introduced the four basic sources of anti-Stratters evidence. Specific evidence then comes further down. The Singing Badger 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Just seen it. Looks like you've done a good job with your reorganising. I recommend delaying reading what I write (I don't know how that's possible!) because I tend to save my immediate response then go back again and again rewriting it until I'm happy with it.

No time for a lengthy response yet, but a quick request: do you have more accessible sources? The Clarke and Cockburn books you've been citing are not widely available, especially for non-Brits, so verification of the claims is difficult. I realize one author is your colleague, so let me stress that no disrespect is meant, but it is a problem. Baconian theory has a long history: is it possible to cite better-known books that might appear in libraries worldwide? The Singing Badger 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare's will: It is not true that a man who could sign his name could be too ill to write his will. A close acquaintance of mine suffered a crippling stroke: he could talk (very slowly) and if given a pen could sign his name (slowly), but writing down his last will and testament by hand would have been far beyond him by that point. I have no idea whether Shakespeare might have suffered something similar but it's entirely possible. Regarding the lack of manuscripts mentioned in it, a good correlative is to read the wills of other playwrights. There are at least ten reprinted in Playhouse Wills, ed. Brock & Honigmann. None of these playwrights mentions manuscripts in their wills either. Shakespeare is entirely normal in this regard. There is no mystery. The Singing Badger 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Oh dear ... I'll repeat what I said earlier. We have a different perception of what is to be expected (probable) based on how other humans would behave under similar circumstances. And don't you mean 'could not be too ill to write his will'? The point is not whether a circumstance is possible but whether it is probable. 21:34 2 September 2006

Jonson and Bacon: You write: Jonson is talking about Bacon writing verses and about the drama of Greece and Rome when Bacon has not explicitly published anything like this. So why is Jonson talking about it then and, in relation to verse writing, calling Bacon the mark of our language while borrowing a phrase from the FF? I say this is a misreading of the relevant passage. Let's read what Jonson actually says, in context:

• Jonson is talking about English Ciceros, that is, eloquent men. Jonson says "We have had many" English Ciceros. He goes on to list them, including Thomas More, Thomas Wyatt, Surrey, Philip Sidney, etc. So far, it looks like a list of poets, but Jonson is actually referring to all types of written eloquence, not just poetry: we can see this when he says "Sir Philip Sidney and Mr. Hooker (in different matter) grew great masters of wit and language" - Sidney was a politician and poet, but Hooker was a theologian, not a poet. Jonson goes on to list several politicians, like the Earl of Essex, who weren't poets (of them, only Raleigh is vaguely associated with poetry). To summarize: he's listing political and religious figures who write well, not just poets and certainly not dramatists.
• Next, Jonson admires "Lord Egerton, the Chancellor, a grave and great orator, and best when he was provoked". Again, he admires Egerton not for poetry, but for oratory, that is, for writing speeches.
• Now we come to the bit you quoted: Jonson says "his learned and able (though unfortunate) successor [i.e. Bacon] is he who hath filled up all numbers, and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome."
  • Now, as far as I can tell, "hath filled up all numbers" is interpreted by you (and other Baconians) as meaning 'has written poetry'. Certainly, 'numbers' can mean poetry. But it can also mean simply 'numbers'!. If so, Jonson is saying that Bacon is so great he has swelled the number of Ciceros enormously: to paraphrase clumsily: 'Bacon has filled up all the available slots in the English Cicero list'. If so, this fits perfectly with the next sentence, in which Jonson says "In short, within his [Bacon's] view, and about his times, were all the wits born that could honour a language or help study. Now things daily fall, wits grow downward, and eloquence grows backward; so that he may be named and stand as the mark and ακμη [acme] of our language." In other words, Bacon has 'filled up the numbers' of Ciceros, and we can expect no more in the future.
  • Presumably you find the word 'performed' important. But this is not a reference to drama. Even if Bacon did write plays, no-one thinks he performed in them, do they? It's obviously referring to the oratory already mentioned in reference to Bacon's predecessor, Egerton. Jonson is admiring Bacon's great rhetorical speeches, in other words. Exactly what he's famous for.
  • So, the lines 'ancient Greece and haughty Rome' do not refer to drama in this context. They refer to writing in general, and probably rhetoric specifically.
• To summarize: in a list of eloquent politicians, Jonson finds Bacon the best. Certainly, the comparison is apt: Bacon was an English Cicero - a rhetorician and prose writer of genius. But Shakespeare's works don't belong in this list - the name 'Shakespeare' referred to a writer of drama and poetry, not political speeches. Given all the above, I find Jonson's self-plagiarism uninteresting in this context. Writers often do it. Read all of Oscar Wilde: he was a genius but he repeated himself constantly. It doesn't mean there's a secret message. The Singing Badger 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Ok, so you posit an obscure interpretation of 'numbers' as being the most likely explanation and you extenuate the fact that Jonson used the 'ancient Greece haughtie Rome' in the First Folio. I also notice that in your article change on the degree of secrecy of the Strachey letter, you completely ignore the position of the share holders on the council who stand to lose if details of the murder and insurrection on the colony get out. Read what is in the letter! I reiterate yet again that I think you have a biased perception of what is probable and I think that you are more interested in being seen to be right that in seeing what is right. So how does this work? Last man standing has proved his candidate did it?! 22:44 2 September 2006

Think logically, the common sailors on the ship that brought the letter would have seen the state of affairs in Jamestown with their own eyes and news of the insurrection would have been common knowledge in London within hours of those guys hitting the taverns. The Virginia Company's shares plummeted after 1610 because everyone in London knew the colony was a disaster. The 'secret' of the insurrection could not have been kept.

Anyway, I no longer have time for this conversation and I think both of us should concentrate more on the article than on the talk page, so thank you for the interesting thoughts. The Singing Badger 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Overview

QBrute. I changed the Overview. Sorry, but that really was full of hidden assumptions. The Lord Chamberlaine's Men was NOT the only company to perform Shakespeare plays. Read the Gesta Grayorum. The Comedy of Errors was performed at Gray's Inn in 1594 and Shakespeare's company was not there (see also citations in Bacon section). Contrary to the implication in the Overview, anti-Stratfordians do NOT accept that the Stratford man was the actor-playwright. Also the anti-Stratfordian objections were under-represented: there are doubts about certain plays and doubts expressed by certain contemporaries. The issue is NOT whether he was incapable of writing the plays because with so few facts about him, that cannot be proved (except in the sense that another candidate accounts better for the evidence). It is whether sufficient doubt exists to merit the consideration of another candidate. The Stratford monument originally portrayed a woolsack not a pen for Shakspere - Stratford council later changed it. I haven't altered the piece on this but I think it's economical with the truth (unintentionally).

Fair enough re: companies although I changed it to 'most' of the plays and will look into this more. Yes, I am aware of the monument issue, which is why I worded it thus: the monument was recognized as a tribute to a poet called Shakespeare as far back as 1631, due to the the inscription on it (comparing WS to Virgil and saying his writing leaves "living art"). I know there is a theory that the monument was been changed over time, but it's a myth; since you're allergic to David Kathman, you'll have to look at the Review of English Studies (1997) article by Diana Price which debunks it (and Price is an anti-Stratfordian!) - this online article summarizes Price but misses some of the key points so don't rely on it too much. Sure, this interesting debate should be in the article somewhere, but as you can see, it's too digressive to belong in the overview and is actually irrelevant to the central point that the words on the monument call Shakespeare a writer and were recognized as such from the early days.The Singing Badger 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that there's a fascinating piece in the August 18 TLS providing further evidence for refurbishment of the monument. Suggests a pre-existing monument to John Shakespeare may have been remodelled in the 1620s to refer to his son instead. Still doesn't support anti-Stratfordianism, just suggests WS's colleagues were cheapskates (and still idealises Dugdale too much IMHO) but worth a read. The Singing Badger 15:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I've never really considered the Stratford monument as any kind of evidence. It represents the opinion of the Stratford council which to me carries no greater weight than that of Stratford's local milkman (if they had one).

I read the overview and picked out some grammatical errors. Changed them. Hope that's OK. Bodleyman

Hey Qbrute, I looked your name up on the internet? Is this you? [15] Bodleyman

QBrute. Hi Bodleyman. I am different things to different people. To Alabamaboy (who is quick to make assumptions about me) I am the devil, to my Oxford students I am God, to the readers of my books I am an enigma ...

Academic attitudes

QBrute. (To The Singing Badger, the Birmingham-Canadian astronomer!) While this discussion has been profitable in improving the article I don't feel like I have succeeded in awakening your curiosity to check out the Bacon theory one bit. I think that's a pity because one cannot be seeing the complete picture by focussing, like academics do, only on Shakspere. I started like everyone else by accepting the Shakspere claim, then started to investigate Marlowe, then Bacon. As for the Oxfordian difficulty with the Earl's early death, I thought it murdered their claim in the cradle. I have no interest in the spiritualist/ciphers angle on Bacon, only in his philosophical ideas and its relation to the Shakespeare work. After that, if Bacon left his name in the work well that's interesting. I once spent a whole weekend exchanging messages with Professor David Kastan, General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, trying to get him to check the facts relating to Bacon. I wanted him to know what I know. He wasn't interested. He was only interested in defending Shakspere. It was almost as if he felt I was attacking the basis of his well being. I thought that I had some very good counter arguments to his points but far from encouraging him to investigate further, it deepened his resolve to stand firm. In the end he excused himself from continuing the discussion accusing me of being entrenched. I thought that he didn't want to investigate an alternative candidate in case there was enough evidence to overturn the icon he had been championing all his academic career. And I have encountered this again and again with academics. However, it's also true of almost all Baconians, Marlovians and Oxfordians and to me it resembles religious zealotry rather than a scientific enquiry. As for me, if I found evidence for a better candidate than Bacon I'd switch again as I have done in the past. Immanuel Kant said that the process of change in a system of thought first demands the teachers to change. This results in a resistance to that change from the population they have been indoctrinating. If the teachers can overcome this obstacle, evolution will occur. I have no doubt it will. But not yet ...

Dude, people are busy. I'm busy. Poor David Scott Kastan must be unbelievably busy supervising the entire Arden Shakespeare project on top of his teaching load; you should be grateful he gave some of his spare time to a stranger. I'm interested in these theories, they help one learn more about the period even if one is unconvinced by them, but there's work, kids, washing up. I may look up your ideas shortly. I may not for many weeks. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all.The Singing Badger 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Why should I be grateful to David Kastan for giving me his time? I think he should be grateful to me for giving him my time. Why? Because in his position of influence, he has a duty to posterity to find the truth of this matter, and I am offering unpaid assistance to that end. With regard to your earlier point about the Cockburn and Clarke books, the Clarke book can easily be found on the amazon site, the Cockburn book Contents (over 500 pages) is less assessible but nevertheless merits inclusion because of its rigor. (I cheerfully passed over the temptation to interpret this point as an attempt to supress the historical evidence contained therein.) By the way, I like your "If it be now ..." quote.

QBrute. Just located a free download page for Clarke's book which I added to Bacon books.

Comment on status of article

I recently received an e-mail from an academic colleague in Oxford, UK, to read through this article and check it for factual accuracy. As far as I can see, the present state of research into the authorship theory is accurately portrayed and most points have citations given. As stated elsewhere here, I think the case against Marlowe could be expanded but perhaps there is no space. barryispuzzled

Single quotes vs double quotes

Why does the article use both single quotes and double quotes? Is there a pattern to the usage?

Not that I'm aware of. If it bothers you, please make them consistent. The Singing Badger 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Double standards

QBrute. I think it is a good idea to apply the Strachey letter to all authorship candidates. We're in agreement on that one. However, I notice that in the Overview we have "The position of conventional scholarship is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and was entirely capable of doing so" without any mention of dissension by scholars. However, in the Strachey letter section, when there is an example of a point unfavourable to the Stratfordian position, an example of an objector is given even though it's stated "Most [scholars] regard it as a clear source for The Tempest". Why the need to argue with that statement? This is clear bias and double standards. If one intends to rely on scholarly authority be consistent!

But the overview is an overview: it doesn't mention anybody by name, Strafordian or anti, because it's a generalized summary. In the Strachey section I mentioned Lindley because he's written 2 books on The Tempest and his dissension is thus notable. It would be great if there were a lot more specific citations to scholars mentioned by name, IMO. It would be even better to describe their reasoning in detail. All this takes time. The Singing Badger 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. How about for the Overview 'The position of conventional scholarship is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and was entirely capable of doing so, although some scholars disagree.' No, I'm not serious. I don't actually care what scholars think, I want to examine the evidence for myself. Ideally, it would be good to give a list of supposed correspondences between The Tempest and the Strachey letter and let the reader decide. It's much better than you and I trying to defend our positions in the article itself ... Is there space in the article? I doubt it. Could the reader be sent to a website page? Maybe ...

Ha! Funnily enough, there is a website that sets out the Strachey parallels in full [16], but you deleted it from the article [17], perhaps because it was written by the prince of darkness himself, David Kathman. Could you stomach sending your readers there ... ? Or will you send them to a site that sets out the same parallels but is written by a Baconian? Tut tut tut, these double standards... The Singing Badger 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. First, I agree that 'unperformed' is speculative. The irony of your above comment doesn't quite work because I felt that David Kathman had been over-enthusiastic about his perceived consequences of the Strachey letter, although he deserves credit for his research. As I have already underlined, the main aim of the Virginia Company was to attract new investors and encourage new people to get on a ship and colonise the place. Would the company really have authorised circulation of an uncensored internal document that pointed out the trouble in the colony? The answer to that might not be found on any document but knowledge is not only about documents, it is also about an assessment of the probability based on precedent or even antecedent (and that's how a court case works). So I feel that the charge of 'double standards' is unjustified. To me, it's not about being Baconian or Stratfordian it's about a balanced interpretation. In fact, I would welcome a webpage that simply sets out the parallels without attempting to interpret the consequences. 14:34 4 September 2006

The Shakespeare Puzzle not reliable

This comment is about QBrute's use of The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry Clarke. QBrute has been using this book to make his arguements about changes to this article and others. While QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes, The Shakespeare Puzzle is not considered a reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the self-published sources section. In short, this book was self published by the author at Lulu.com and as a result "has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking (and) no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exception to this rule is for "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" but since Clarke's field of expertise is puzzles, this exception doesn't count.

As said before, QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes. Any use of this book, though, should not be permitted. In addition, QBrute, I don't think you are the devil. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppets

Unfortunately, it also appears QBrute has been using sock puppets in this discussion and Baconian theory. In short, the evidence suggests that QBrute is also User:Barryispuzzled, who is Barryispuzzled admits on his user page, Barry Clarke, author of The Shakespeare Puzzle. The use of sock puppets to try and influence discussions and edits around articles is not permitted. User:Barryispuzzled is free to try and seek consensus on these proposed changes but he can not promote his own book in so doing. In addition, he should stop using sock puppets to seek these changes. Until this use of sock puppets is stopped, I am supporting User:The Singing Badger on these proposed edits. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, juast for the record I'm not opposed to all of QBrute's edits and he has been doing some useful work, so it's not a question of 'me against him'! He has been using some 'proper' sources alongside his reliance on The Shakespeare Puzzle. But if he has been trying to promote his own book, his edits should be evaluated carefully with that in mind. The Singing Badger 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. I too noticed that User:Barryispuzzled has made some good edits and I really like the Baconian theory article he created. That said, the use of sock puppets is not permitted and he can't promote his book here or use it as a source. Still, User:Barryispuzzled obviously knows a lot about this subject and I welcome him to edit here. Just don't break Wikipedia guidelines while doing so.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(Shaking head in disbelief) Look, all I care about is the quality of these articles as the Talk section will attest to. I'm not interested in other people trying to get me involved in their personal issues by a projection onto me of bad intent. The Baconian theory article is constructed from my book and the quality of the arguments throughout the book is consistent with the Baconian article. What do you want me to do, write out the whole book here with its citations? Really? So why not let people have the gift of being able to check all the facts themselves in a free download? Do you really think that after years of researching this issue, giving a free download gives me some kind of personal reward? It's a shame the hard work of myself and The Singing Badger has now been brutalised by reverting the article to a lesser version ... how depressing for those of us who have put in so much genuine effort. Sure, you're right, rules are rules ... (Puzzle Master 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm leaving this article, it is not worthwhile for me to police it. I don't like the moderator Alabamaboy's negative attitude to me and I don't like the fact that one can spend a week discussing and improving this through the Talk section and then some other guy who doesn't even bother reading the Talk gratuitously changes it to an inferior state (and there are several people doing this, including the moderator). If people want to continue regurgitating uncritical views from textbooks then who am I to spoil their fun. As others commented before I arrived, this article was very biased. Well, now it can revert to that state. I'm outta here. (Puzzle Master 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

It is a shame you feel that way. With regards to the free download, that is a self-promotional link as defined by Wikipedia and not allowed. As for people making changes to the article, that is how Wikipedia works. You must gain consensus for any edits you make. With noncontroversial edits, consensus usually results automatically b/c no one changes your edits. With controversial edits, you need to discuss the changes on the talk page and work toward consensus. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by contemporaries

I tried to make this section clearer by drawing the relevant quotations out of the footnotes and into the text. However, I must confess I found it hard to understand the anti-Stratfordian interpretations of these lines; I've tried to explain them, but they seem (to me) astoundingly tenuous (in particular the Jonson and Marston ones). I think we need a properly published source to prove that these really are common anti-Stratfordian arguments. If, in contrast, these interpretations can be found only in Barry Clarke's self-published book, I'm afraid they would have to be deleted. The Singing Badger 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A present to The Singing Badger. Now that you have the full argument in your possession (see below) I should like to see your proof that it only appears in my book (it doesn't) before you delete it from the article. I cannot help you with sources here because I've abandoned editing this article. I can understand your urge to delete a confused anti-Stratfordian argument but I cannot imagine that you would want to delete a perfectly well-argued one (complete with historical references) - unless you are trying any possible trick to represent your man in a better light ... but I know you better than that! :) By the way, I admire the work you've been doing here. Are you a published scholar? I'd love to know what books or articles you have had published (on anything at all). (Puzzle Master 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

GREENE ARGUMENT. The first reference to Shakespeare the actor appears in an autobiographical pamphlet from 1592. When the Cambridge-educated dramatist Robert Greene died on 3 September 1592 at the age of 32, his friend and fellow playwright Henry Chettle edited together some of his papers. Seventeen days later, they were published under the title A Groats-worth of Witte. One article, addressed to three unidentified playwrights, was entitled “To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plaies, R.G. wishest a better exercise, and wisdome to prevent his extremities.” The first, “thou famous gracer of Tragedians” and follower of a “Machivilian … Diabolicall Atheisme” was almost certainly Christopher Marlowe; the second, “yong Juvenal, that byting Satyrist” was most likely the leading satirist of the time, Thomas Nashe; and the third, “sweete St. George” could easily have been George Peele. After admonitions to the three, they are served with a warning to beware of a particular player:

"Base-minded men all three of you, if by my miserie you be not warn’d: for unto none of you (like mee) sought those burres to cleave: those Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours. … Yes, trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers(a), that with his Tyger’s hart wrapped in a Player’s(b) hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Iohannes factotum(c), is in his owne conceit the only Shake-scene in a countrey. O that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses: & let these Apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions." Key : (a) see below, (b) actor’s, (c) Jack-of-all-trades

Apart from the “Shake-scene” wordplay, the fact that identifies Shake-speare the author is the “Tyger’s hart wrapped in a Player’s hyde” which is derived from a speech by the Duke of Yorke in Henry VI, Part 3, which Shakespeare in his “Player’s hyde” appears to have claimed to have written. Queen Margaret has murdered the Duke of York’s young son Rutland, and soaking a handkerchief in his blood, offers it to the Duke for consolation. Some time later, the Duke of York is captured by the Queen and as he faces his execution he confronts her inhumanity:

Yorke. … Oh Tygres Heart, wrapt in a Woman’s Hide,

How could’st though drayne the Life-blood of the Child,

To bid the Father wipe his eyes withall,

And yet be seene to beare a Woman’s face?

(1590-2 Henry VI, Part 3, Act 1, Scene 4)

The “Tyger’s hart” casts Shakespeare as ruthless and predatory and the charge that he “supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you [three dramatists]” is evidently referring to his claim to authorship. Greene had previously used the crow and feathers metaphor in the dedication to his Myrrour of Modestie (1584) “But your honour may thinke I play like Ezops Crowe, which dekt hir selfe with others feathers, or like the proud Poet Batyllus, which subscribed his name to Virgils verses, and yet presented them to Augustus.” This fable of Aesop’s, The Crow, the Eagle, and the Feathers is directed “… against people who boast that they have something they do not.” The recommendation that dramatists should “never more acquaint them [the players] with your inventions,” makes it clear that the accusation is one of plagiarism. An Elizabethan actor usually worked from a prompt script consisting of pages cut and pasted together into a scroll. This gave his own lines and the cues that preceded them. So it was unusual for an actor to possess a complete script (“invention”) and the complaint appears to be that Shakespeare not only had access to them but was asserting his authorship of them. There was some doubt at the time as to whether Greene actually composed this piece. The dramatist Henry Chettle was accused of hiding behind the deceased Greene’s name to propagate his own views, especially since the publisher William Wright had entered it in the Stationers Register “upon the peril of Henrye Chettle,” thereby awarding Chettle full responsibility. Chettle subsequently published Kind Hart’s Dream [registered 8 December 1592] in which he reveals that: "About these three months since died M. Robert Greene ... his Groatsworth of Wit, in which a letter written to diverse play-makers, is offensively by one or two of them taken …" We note that Chettle says that the letter was written to the ones who took offence not about. This means that he is referring to any two of Marlowe, Nashe, and probably Peele. He continues: "With neither of them that took offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I never be ..." This sounds like the diabolical atheist Marlowe. Our problem is, who was the other one? Chettle informs us that: "... myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes: besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art …" In the hope of neutralizing the Groatsworth attack, some have claimed that this apology was intended for Shakespeare but there is nothing here that suggests that it is him. In fact, it is much more likely to have been Thomas Nashe because there is good evidence that he had already taken offence to the Groatsworth before Chettle’s apology was published. In the second edition of Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Devil [registered 8 August 1592; 1st edition published 8 September 1592; 2nd edition almost immediately after] Nashe had identified the Groatsworth to be a “scald lying trivial pamphlet ... given out to be my doing”. That Nashe was suspected is confirmed by Chettle’s claim that the misdeed was “not mine nor Maister Nashes”. Aside from being accused of authoring an offensive pamphlet, Nashe’s anger seems also to have arisen from his friend Greene's name being tainted “with pamphleting on him after his death”. (Puzzle Master 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, as I said, I understood that one. It's the Jonson and Marston ones that confuse me. The Singing Badger 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

JONSON ARGUMENT. The following note was discovered amongst Ben Jonson’s papers after he died in 1637. It was published in Timber: or Discoveries, made upon men and matter (1641) and represents a clear expression of Jonson’s perception of the relationship between Shakespeare and Shake-speare: "I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn’d) hee never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, ‘Would he had blotted a thousand,’ which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted." Our first observation is that “in his writing” is qualified by “whatsoever he penned” as if Jonson is counselling caution as to what should be attributed to the actor. We then have “Would he have blotted a thousand” which is clearly identified as a “malevolent speech.” This appears to mean that whatever Shakespeare wrote was so poor that Jonson felt it deserved to be blotted out. Jonson evidently felt that the actor’s writing (if it existed) was unworthy of commendation. He continues with a comment on Shakespeare’s spontaneity: "… wherein he flow’d with that faculty, that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopp’d: Sufflaminandus erata; as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him ‘Caesar, thou dost me wrong.’ He replied, ‘Caesar never did wrong but with just cause’: and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." Key : (a) he had to be repressed This is a telling reference to the Roman orator Haterius who had a reputation for confusing his words. With “would the rule of it had beene so too,” Jonson does not confirm the level of intelligence one might expect from the author of the Shake-speare work. Julius Caesar was first printed in the First Folio (1623) where the following appears at the end of a 14-line speech by Caesar:

Caesar. … Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause

Will he be satisfied

(1599 Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1)

The two most likely interpretations of Jonson’s comments are as follows: (a) The line that he heard the actor recite was from an earlier version of Julius Caesar (which does not survive), Shakespeare correctly recalled it, so Jonson was instead criticising the writing. Since the actor was the object of the ridicule, Jonson was then attributing the writing to him. Caesar’s speech must have been modified later for the First Folio. (b) There was no earlier version of Caesar’s speech and it originally existed as given in the First Folio. The actor had incorrectly recalled the line and replaced it with an ill-considered version. Jonson was therefore ridiculing the recollection not the writing.

Fortunately, there is some evidence to allow us to decide between these alternatives. In 1625, Ben Jonson’s comedy The Staple of News was acted by “His Majesty’s Servants” containing the line that had made Shakespeare such an object of ridicule for Jonson. The Induction (or Prologue) has the following exchange between Prologue and Madame Expectation:

Prologue : [We ask] That your Ladyship would expect no more than you understand.

Expectation : Sir, I can expect, enough.

Prologue : I fear, too much, Lady and teach others to do like.

Expectation : I can do that too, if I have cause.

Prologue : Cry you mercy, you never did wrong, but with just cause.

In consideration of case (a), it is reasonable to assume that Jonson would have been aware of the correction to the line in Julius Caesar, especially since there is evidence that he worked on Shake-speare’s First Folio and his two eulogies suggest some empathy for the writer at that time. Two years later The Staple of News appeared. It seems unlikely that Jonson would now continue to ridicule the deceased author because not only had the line now been corrected for the First Folio, but he had demonstrated his respect for him only two years earlier. This leaves us case (b), where the First Folio version of Julius Caesar was the original one and the actor incorrectly recalled a line that was not his. The implication is that Jonson perceived Shake-speare the author and Shakepeare the actor to be different people, for while one might forgive the real Shake-speare for forgetting one of his own lines, one would not expect him to give a “ridiculous” substitute in its place.

The use of Jonson's comment from Timber strikes me as inherently POV, since it elides the words that clearly indicate that Jonson is speaking of Shakespeare as an author: "He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature, had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility, &c."Jlittlet 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I could use these words to describe my neighbour who fancies himself as a stand-up comedian. He hasn't published a single comma! (Puzzle Master 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

MARSTON ARGUMENT. The final years of the 16th century were punctuated by satirical comedy with rival dramatists attacking each others work. When the long poems Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) were published, their title pages carried a dedication to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton. After much protestation of his unworthiness of such patronage, the author “William Shakespeare” leaves his name. In the third satire of John Marston's Scourge of Villanie (1598), Marston the satirist refers to Shake-speare’s The Rape of Lucrece and in identifying himself with the Roman satirist “gloomie Juvenal” and his disastrous fortune, appears to be directing his protest at Shakespeare the actor:

"M. is clearly thinking of the tradition, deriving from the scholiast, about Juvenal: that he lampooned Paris, an actor, whom Domitian was in love with, and that the emperor in revenge appointed the satirist to a minor post in Egypt where he ended his days in miserable exile."

In stating that his “satyrick vain” would not be silenced, Marston must also have anticipated disastrous consequences for himself and, in fact, his satires were destroyed by the authorities less than a year later. The “nobilitie” can only be the Earl of Southampton to whom Lucrece is dedicated.

Shall broking pandars(a) sucke(b) nobilitie?

Soyling faire stems with foule impuritie?

Nay, shall a trencher slave(c) extenuate,(d)

Some Lucrece rape?(e) And straight magnificate(f)

Lewd Jovian Lust? Whilst my satyrick vaine

Shall muzzled be, not daring out to straine

His tearing paw?(g) No gloomy Juvenall,(h)

Though to thy fortunes I disastrous fall.

Key: (a) pimp or procurer, (b) attract, (c) player or villain, one who feeds off others, (d) make light of, (e) possible theft, also alluding to Shake-speare’s The Rape of Lucrece, (f) praise, (g) possible allusion to the Groatsworth “tyger”, (h) Roman satirist whose work Marston parodied In other words, could a “foule impuritie” such as Shakespeare the actor, who is characterized as a broker and procurer, have attracted the patronage of such fair noble blood as the Earl of Southampton? Lines 3 and 4 might also be claiming that Shakespeare the “trencher slave” has made light of his abduction of The Rape of Lucrece work.

A present to The Singing Badger! Now that you have the full arguments in your possession (see above) I should like to see your proof that they only appear in my book (they don't) before you delete them from the article. I cannot help you with sources here because I've abandoned editing this article. I can understand your urge to delete a confused anti-Stratfordian argument but I cannot imagine that you would want to delete a perfectly well-argued one (complete with historical references) - unless you are trying any possible trick to represent your man in a better light ... but I know you better than that! :) By the way, I admire the work you've been doing here. Are you a published scholar? I'd love to know what books or articles you have had published (on anything at all). Bye. (Puzzle Master 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Are you seriously asking me to hunt through every single anti-Stratfordian book in search of similar arguments?! If you got them from some other book you must be able to remember! Just tell us!! The Singing Badger 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To The Singing Badger. The Shakespeare Puzzle is (in my view) an extraordinary collection of historical evidence and arguments some of which have previous sources and some of which have never been seen before. Anyone above a certain level of intelligence can recognise the quality of this work. However, since all University Presses are committed to the Stratfordian view it is impossible to get them to look at it never mind assess it for publication and I think that is a pity (for scholarship). Do not imagine for one second that the book is a profit-making exercise. No one with a free download wants a hard copy and I am in debt from the copyright fees paid on the British Library images. My agenda is simple. I want other people to have this evidence and that is why the free download is available. I suspect that it is your agenda to delete all references to this work and deny people access to this evidence. You could cite Wikipedia's self-publishing guidelines as justification but I hold you responsible having elected yourself as the executioner. And you want me to help you with the article?! Are you serious?!(Puzzle Master 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)) The argument that the Shakespeare authorship problem is best approached by people with published work and academic titles in English literature is ridiculous. Any fool can look up historical facts in a library. However, this is a actually a scientific investigation, an archeological dig, a historical puzzle, demanding an ability to recognise connections between diverse facts, and I believe my credentials in science and puzzles are more appropriate than most who believe they have the authority to correct these articles. (Puzzle Master 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Please don't make this personal between you and the Singing Badger, whose comments above reflect the policies of wikipedia on this point, not some quirky individual view. I'm not doubting that your book is great: but then you did write it - I think my books are great, too. But please understand we cannot allow people to use wikipedia for promotion: we are one of the top 20 sites in the world, so everybody wants to get promotion here and we are fighting a constant rearguard action. Also, nobody is demanding that you help with this or any other article: contribution here at Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. All "we" are saying is that comments which aren't sourced in accordance with our poicy at WP:V are likely to be removed from the article. We are only suggesting that you source them if you want them to remain. Can I also just say that I'd be sorry if you left wikipedia. I've been very impressed by the recent work done by you and by Qbrute here and at Baconian theory, and there's no question that your involvement has made a positive improvement to the encyclopedia. I hope you stay. AndyJones 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And while I'm here, kudos to The Singing Badger for taking up the gauntlet on behalf of wikipedia, and doing such detailed work, with sensitivity to the new editors and existing editors, and to the pro- and anti- Stratfordian POVs. AndyJones 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this barnstar jointly to the recent editors of the Shakespeare Authorship page, especially Qbrute, Barryispuzzled aka Puzzle Master, The Singing Badger and Alabamaboy for their professional handling of the rewrite. AndyJones 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to AndyJones for such a kind gesture of the Barnstar. Of course, QBrute is Barryispuzzled aka Puzzle Master! As stated above, in general, I think The Singing Badger has done some great work on these articles and (as I have told him) I welcome his attempts to find counter arguments. Let's keep giving people the facts. (Puzzle Master 10:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

To do list

This article is getting better but it's far from perfect and I'm too busy to work on it. I have thus written a to-do list (see top of page). Feel free to edit it, and add to it. When Barry reads this list, he will think I'm getting at him. I'm not, I'm just enforcing policy. Much of his work can stay on the page if he is prepared to acknowledge the people who originated the ideas he has written about. The Singing Badger 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is tantamount to saying that irrespective of the coherence of an argument, the state controls all knowledge and that only those arguments approved by the state can contribute to it. This is where we differ. I want to know the truth and share it with others, whereas you have appointed yourself as judge and jury for the state. This has an additional pay-off because you can invoke state authority to oppose all opposition to your uncritical Stratfordian views. It must be great having so much power! (Puzzle Master 10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Also, with respect to self-published work, I cite the Wikipedia guidelines ... "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." My name is in Wikipedia (well-known), I have written a regular column for The Daily Telegraph (professional journalist) and my work has been published by Dover, Cambridge University Press and Mensa (reliable third party sources). Notice that this does not state that the professional journalist need have work in a relevant (Shakespeare authorship) field. So I protest immunity your honour. (Puzzle Master 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

This argument not even close to convincing. Your book fails WP:V and its inclusion breaches WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. Nothing more to debate, here. AndyJones 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is AndyJones and Alabamaboy the same person? Would you like to explain your reasoning why it fails WP:V because obviously neither of us should rely on our own personal authority? I might seek other administrator opinions. By the way, I'll be away for a while because I'm writing an article for the Telegraph on maths education in schools (seriously) so don't feel too bad if I don't respond immediately! (Puzzle Master 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Your name is in Wikipedia because you wrote a page about yourself; that is hardly good evidence that you are 'well known' - indeed, it indicates that you are not. And I don't think puzzle books are the kind of writing the policy is referring to (don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for puzzle design - it just doesn't strike me as the kind of encyclopaedic, research-based writing that is relevant to Wikipedia). Incidentally I notice that you have written a 5-star review of your own book on Amazon, and yet you claim you're not into self-promotion! But by all means seek other opinions: Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a page designed to facilitate this. The Singing Badger 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to respond to this. Reading the review carefully, it is by Angela Newing of The Daily Telegraph, she submitted it to me, I uploaded it for her. (Puzzle Master 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Puzzle Master, the exception to the self-published rule doesn't apply to you b/c your realm of expertise is puzzles, not Shakespeare. This means (as I've said before) your book is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I'm not the same person as AndyJones. I'm an administrator with a long history of edits. The reason I've held your book to Wikipedia standards is b/c I care deeply about Wikipedia and following our guidelines, not out of some desire to "get you." However, feel free to seek opinions from other administrators. I'd be surprised if you can find one who will say we are being unfair. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely your view that we are not the same person is simply a symptom of you accepting uncritically the superficial case. After all, there is certainly anecdotal evidence that Wikipedia-editing carries a social stigma in Alabama, which would provide a motivation to have your edits attributable to another user. It is certainly not possible to prove scientifically that you and I are not one-and-the-same. The fact that you and I both have thousands of edits and that it would in fact be difficult for you to edit from IPs in the United States and from IPs in Bermuda and England is surely no kind of proof on the point. Besides, the sixty-eighth word from the end of the List of Pokemon Characters article is "Alabama", and the sixty-eighth word from the beginning of Albert Einstein is "boy": leading to the conclusion that if you take each 68th letter on User talk:AndyJones (you have to disregard those in italic, replacing them instead with the next following letter which appears in bold) you get GBYTFDIKJODTFOGJRYTSNFT, and anagram of HUJDTY FGFCVT IJBFGH, which when translated into French produces a fairly close anagram of the Latin HI LUPPY DIPPDY DOODY, which loosly translates as "I ALABAMABOY BEQUEATHE THESE ARTICLES TO THE WORLD (not forgetting to mention that I'm the love child of Elizabeth II and such such the true heir apparent to the throne of England)". AndyJones 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This ironic slant would be quite clever if it accurately paralleled my views but it comes nowhere close. I suggest you read (for free!) The Shakespeare Puzzle if you really are an aspiring satirist. Be careful though. It's not a democratic view and because no minority view ever heralded progress you might be better not straying too far from the safety of your Stratford field. Alternatively, you could approach an alternative view with an open mind, a definite prerequisite for progress ... (Puzzle Master 00:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, although of course I have no basis upon which to judge which specific arguments compel your own strident Alabamabodianism, or indeed what evidence you considered in arriving at your view. If there's a chapter on the Alabamaboy question in your book, that really would be worth a read. Having said that, to the open-minded it is a pretty compelling case: The antialabamabodianist consensus starts to look pretty weak if one abandons the notion that a username on an edit summary implies authorship of it. Consider the evidence: two usernames starting with "A", literally hundreds of google-hits for bloggers who live in Alabama asserting that Wikipedia is "crap": easily sufficient to overcome the modern notion that a person who wrote on the exalted level of AndyJones would surely claim credit for his work. There are at least two contemporary references here and here identifying the two characters as one and the same, these made by a qualified scientist with the credentials to conduct such an enquiry, making it inconceivable that he is wrong. Not only that, but by using methods developed by UK trial lawyer Horace Rumpole, I have discovered that by lying on the grass in the middle of my field in Stratford and looking at printouts of Wikipedia pages through the bottom of a red wine bottle I can clearly read M J V ALABAMABOY DD F J CX implying I'm-not-sure-what about Jimbo Wales, or Ben Jonson, or someone. It's a compelling argument, I think you'll agree. AndyJones 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare Puzzle spam

I notice that The Singing Badger called my work 'spam' [see edit history]. Is this a deliberate attempt to offend? No, because I know he's joking after all he knows that he is less qualified than I am in science and puzzles and certainly not qualified in this area to stand in judgement over me (and that's why I laughed). Of course the discoveries are a minority view - I'm the only one that came up with it! Surely that should be no surprise! Following this absurd logic, Edwin Durning-Lawrence's minority interpretation of honorificabilitudinitatibus should also go as should Mrs Elizabeth Wells Gallup's bilateral cipher after all "only Ms. Gallup could reliably distinguish between the "two" fonts". At least, I can claim to have a better (recognised) expertise in ciphers and puzzles than Gallup and Lawrence. So I hope reason prevails here. (Puzzle Master 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

• On a more serious note from the above: SPAM isn't an insult, it's just the name of our policy on the point. See WP:SPAM. You yourself started the MedCab on the question, so you can continue the discussion, there. Other relevant policies are WP:V, WP:VAIN and WP:OR. I can only suggest you read these and take them on board. You won't find Wikipedia editors prepared to bend those rules, generally speaking, as they are at the core of what Wikipedia is. AndyJones 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Authorship article a copy?

I've just stumbled across this article on Shakespeare authorship [18] which is remarkably similar to this one. Who has copied who? (Puzzle Master 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

At the bottom of the article you referenced is the citation "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia." In short, they copied from us.--Alabamaboy 01:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a sub-standard version anyway. Hope you enjoyed your holiday Alabamaboy. :) (Puzzle Master 11:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Enhancements

Added greater clarity to the Marston argument in Comments by Contemporaries. Also cut Bacon section as requested in Things to Do. (Puzzle Master 09:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Added anti-Stratfordian citations. (Puzzle Master 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

MedCab case

Yup, there's a MedCab case, first allow me to include this unobtrusive boiler plate template that I would put at the top of this page, but its too far to walk...

<<remove template>>

Thanks, Addhoc 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A thought about Wiki policy

There is one thing that needs to be said. The Wiki guidelines are intended to ensure that the public get accurate information. I'm sure this works well in most cases but the Shakespeare authorship issue is an exceptional one. There are some good anti-Stratfordian arguments (with full historical citations) which, due to the publication policy of the University Presses, can never reach scholastic publication and so would be prohibited under Wiki guidelines. It one strictly adhered to Wiki policy, only Stratfordian arguments would be represented in this article. If one wants a Shakespeare authorship article that serves the public and portrays all arguments, then there needs to be some flexibility here and arguments should be judged on their own merit. There are some intelligent editors here and I hope they exercise good judgment and discretion. (Puzzle Master 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi Puzzle Master,

and thanks for supporting the principles of tolerance and openness. I agree with you completely that Wikipedia must serve a public purpose that is larger than the purposes of academicians as such. Like any other group, academicians are susceptible to groupthink; they sometimes adhere to paradigms that are no longer supported by the best evidence. They too can become ingrown, intolerant, and dangerously narrow-minded. I do think, however, you are overly pessimistic about the current state of academic publications. It is true that many academicians remain irrationaly hostile towards considering the authorship question with the attention many (mostly, but not entirely, non-academicians) believe it deserves. It is not true that no academic presses have or will publish openly or implicitly anti-Stratfordian articles. Diana Price published an openly anti-Stratfordian article in Review of English Studies, and more recently Penny McCarthy's critique of the traditional Stratfordian chronology appeared in the 2004 issue of The Shakespeare Yearbook -- its hard to get more orthodox than that. My point is just that as the material and perspectives on Wikipedia are in flux, they are also in flux within traditional scholarly circles.

By the way, thanks also to whoever restored the sonnets title page with the hyphenated name. We should keep it.

Rayleigh's execution

This is a very nice addition.

There are lines in Macbeth that appear to have been written two years after Shakespeare of Stratford died and 16 years after the Earl of Oxford died. The first to advance the suggestion that the play contains references to Sir Walter Rayleigh’s execution in 1618, was James Spedding, the Victorian editor of Francis Bacon’s Works, who had in mind the speech by Malcolme in the Palace at Forres in relation to the ‘disloyall traytor/The Thane of Cawdor’(1.2.53):

King. Is execution done on Cawdor?

Or not those in Commission yet return’d?

Malcolme. My Liege, they are not yet come back,

But I have spoke with one that saw him die :

Who did report, that very frankly hee

Confess’d his Treasons, implor’d your Highnesse Pardon

And set forth a deepe Repentance:

Nothing in his Life became him,

Like the leaving it. He dy’de,

As one that had been studied in his death,

To throw away the dearest thing he ow’d,

As ‘twere a carelesse Trifle.(1.4.1)

Several sources had remarked on Raleigh’s frivolity in the face of his impending execution and the assertion that ‘[the Commission] are not yet come back’ appears to refer to the fact that his execution was swift, and in fact it was the day after his trial for treason. Puzzle Master 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by Smatprt

A series of changes have recently been made to this article by User:Smatprt. See this diff. I have asked Smatprt to join the discussion here. I have reverted the changes pending further discussion. I think the following points need to be addressed:

General points

1. We've debated here before whether we call the Stratford man "Shaksper". We don't. Feel free to reopen that debate, but we're calling him Shakespeare unless/until a new consensus forms.
2. None of this is sourced. Please provide sources if you want any of the substantive changes to stand. See WP:V, WP:RS.
3. There are an awful lot of weasel words, here. See WP:WEASEL. I personally think that is a fault of this article as a whole, but these new edits are particularly full of them.
4. User:Smatprt has also made substantial unsourced edits to a number of other articles about the plays, clearly with the intention of bringing them within an Oxfordian timeline. That is particularly egregious in the case of Macbeth where 1606 was quietly changed to 1604 with the edit summary "date correction". The full list is here, and I am in the process of reverting it all.

Minor or specific points

1. "an actor whith a similar spelled name" (a) contains obvious spelling/grammar errors (b) ignores "Shakespeare" sometimes being spelled Shakespeare.
2. As regards sourcing, I'm particlularly concerned about the unsourced suggestion that Oxford knew Warwickshire well, and the unsourced suggestion that publication of Shakespeare's plays ceased around 1604.
3. I presumably don't have to explain why "< ref >[ NY Times ]" is not acceptable as a source. AndyJones 10:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response from smatprt

Yes, thank you for asking me to join the discussion. Regarding your specific comments:

it is obvious to anyone that Stratfordains have taken over this page. Most statements having to do with the Stratford man are stated as fact and most statements about Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe etc are full of "supposedly", "assume", etc.

1) It helps with the debate to differentiate between the author and the primary candidate. Since Shaksper of Stratford rarely spelled his name Shakespeare, I find it presumptious and bias to insist on the "Shakespeare: spelling.

2) Since the name was published "Shake-speare" on numerous documents, including the Sonnets and numerous poems in the folio, why are you against sharing this fact?

3) Regarding the Warwickshire comment, logic dictates that if Shakspere was a front-man for Oxford, then Oxford would have known him well and heard his accent on numerous occasions.

4) The original article is full of stratfordian WEASEL words. Please explain why you allow these to stand?

5) Thruough-out wikipedia, Shakespeare's plays have been dated as "facts", when you know that is not the case. Publication dates provide clues, but no certainty as to actual date of composition. Since you only correct anti-stratfordian mistakes, you are apparently biased on behalf of the man from Stratford. But does you bias have any place on wikipedia?

• I have gone back through the loop again, reverting all of your edits on the pages for the individual plays, pending reaching a consensus here. I have allowed fact tags to remain, although only one in a sentence, where I thought it was legitimate to request a source for the conventional dating. It's too late in the evening to respond to the above points in full, but we all know that human knowledge as expressed in encyclopedias has nothing to do with objective truth - that's the sphere of the gods - what we care about is verifiability. If you do not provide sources you must not expect any contentious edit to survive the scrutiny of other editors. Also, we all have bias. My bias has exactly as much place on wikipedia - no more, no less - as does yours. AndyJones 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Further, this morning I've reverted a couple of edits by User:206.55.252.166, for the same reason. I don't know whether that's the IP for Smatprt, or another editor trying to maintain a balance between us. AndyJones 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Returning to give some preliminary responses to the points above:
  • I'm not sure I accept that the page is "taken over by Stratfordians", for two reasons:
    • Firstly, because anti-Stratfordianism is an extremely minority view, supported by almost no-one in academia. By your standards anyone neutral or objective could be labeled "Stratfordian".
    • The last major overhaul of this article was done recently by Barry Clarke (User:Barryispuzzled), a Baconian.
  • I fully understand why "Shaksper" and "Shakespeare" are differentiated in the authorship debate. I agree it can be a useful differentiator. [Barry Clarke (who I just mentioned) uses three different spellings in his book, to differentiate the Stratford man from the actor-manager from the author, and in context it works well.] However the distinction is not used on this page, and there are two reasons why I regard a consensus here as a prerequisite to changing it on the page, which are:
    • Firstly, it is obviously a contentious matter.
    • Secondly, using a different name for the Stratford man is "loaded" - it implies he and the author were two different people, which is the very subject under discussion. (And if Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays (which, of course, he did) then his name was spelled "Shakespeare" on the title page of almost every one of them.)
  • I have no objection to Wikipedia noting that SHAKE-SPEARE was hyphenated on the title page of the sonnets. Indeed I think wikipedia already says that, in a few places.
  • As regards the Warwickshire comment, you are seriously undermining your own credibility here. Yesterday you edited the article to say that Oxford knew Warwickshire dialect because he stayed there. Now you are saying it is logical that he could have picked up his Warwickshire dialect from his contact with "Shaksper". The only conclusion to reach is that you don't know what the Oxford case is, and you are making the argument up on the hoof. This is the main reason why I (and in this respect I think I'm speaking for wikipedia as a whole) require sources. Arguments on the talk page - especially very bad arguments like these - are nowhere near good enough, and are frankly not worth debating.
  • Weasel words are a real problem in this article - a point I acknowledged in my post yesterday. Fixing those is right at the top of the page's to-do list. However their existence does not justify adding more and making the situation worse.
  • On the question of dating, please remember that nothing in Wikipedia is a "fact". As I said yesterday, that's the realm of the gods. The dates given on the articles for the plays are (or, at least, should be) the verifiable opinions of scholars on the subject. I think it is very obvious that the silliness of your edit to Macbeth is far, far, far worse than failing to acknowledge a minority argument for a different dating on that page. I personally believe that Oxfordianism on wikipedia has its place here and on the Oxfordian theory page, but that the WP:NPOV policy would prevent us from giving it anything more than "footnote" status on the pages for the plays themselves.
  • I should be grateful for the input of other editors on this discussion. AndyJones 13:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you've said Andy, although given the amount of Stratfordian weasel words on this page, I sympathise with Smatprt's accusations of hypocrisy. I would ask everyone concerned with this page to be liberal with the {{fact}} tag, marking all unsupported statements this way. I would perhaps suggest that instead of deleting unsupported statements, we put a {{fact}} tag on them for a while to give a chance for the editor to find a source. This page needs sources, more than anything else, and if it turns into a forest of citation requests, that is o bad thing! The Singing Badger 14:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from SMATPRT

Thank you Andy (and Badger) for your responses, although I must take Andy to task for a major missrepresentation he is making about my edit, and the personal attack that followed.

1) Regarding the Warwickshire comment, here is what you, ANDY, said (or approved) in your last edit:

"Such references are so frequent in Shakespeare's work that many scholars believe that they could only be written by a man of Warwickshire. Oxfordians argue that the Earl of Oxford had a house in the Stratford area but records suggest he never visited there, let alone spent enough time to assimilate local dialect."

As you can see - I did not add ANYTHING having to do with Oxford owning a home in the area, a fact I already was aware of. I added to the sentence an additional Oxfordian arguement - the basic proposal that if Shakspere were a front man for Oxford, then Oxford would have ample opportunity to study a man for Warwickshire. It's the reasoning behind an arguement that places it in context. It's not an attempt to state a "fact" as it is directly called an "argument". Here is how I amended the sentence:

...Oxfordians argue that the Earl of Oxford had a house in the Stratford area... and point out that if Shakspere of Stratford was indeed a front man for the Earl of Oxford, then the Earl would obviously have had plenty of first hand exposure to the Warwickshire dialect. (my addition in bold)

I did probably make a mistake in deleting the unattributed "suggestion" that Oxford never visited a house he owned... because I thought it a ridiculous assumption. I mean, pleeeeeeeaaase. But I did NOT add the section about Oxford's house, I did NOT confuse my arguement or make anything up "off the hoof." Andy's dismissive and insulting stance is certainly not helpful nor his suggestion that my comments are not worthy of debate. I think he owes me an apology.

2) I do not accept the notion that anti-Stratfordianism is an "extremely minority view". "Extreme" and "Extremism" are modern buzzwords for nutcases and terrorists. As such, those words have no place in a civilized debate. Any balanced view must now admit that the anti-Stratfordian movement is now a growing minority view and it should be regarded as such. Oxford is the leading candidate and has been named so by every major news outlet in the world. Stratfordians need to get past that and stop trying to hide the debate - a debate that has major implications that span numerous fields.

3) In regards to dating, there is not, nor has there ever been, a consensus on dating. If you look back at 20 years of dating arguements, conventional scholars all over the map. Within academia the debate rages on. Also within academia however, are numerous anti-Stratfordians who, in another futile attempt to shut down the Oxfordian debate, have (more recently) pushed the composition dates later and later to the point where now, Wikipedia, and other outlets, are listing numerous composition dates as undebated facts. This is not the case and you can't pretend it is. Sources need to be cited and alternative dates must be allowed to be proposed. And who decides what is important and what is a footnote is not up to any one person.

I will answer additional points at a later time. Best regards, all -

• You are right, I have misunderstood you. I have struck the comment and I apologise. AndyJones 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How to keep the article short

If a piece of evidence is only relevant to ONE candidate, don't put it on this page. Put it in the separate articles Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, or Baconian theory. The first two are very weak currently and need beefing up. The Singing Badger 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on article structure

I think it is necessary to place the arguments against Shakespeare before the descriptions of the candidates. I think the logical structure is to explain the reasons for doubt about WS, then list the possible alternatives.

Smartprt disagrees. He thinks the descriptions of candidates should come first because "You can't detail every Stratfordian arguement before even introducing the candidates.(Many entries don't make sense unless you know the players)".

I kinda see the logic there, especially the latter point. But I still find Smartprt's structure wrong: surely we need to explain why there is a question at all, before we start on the next step?

Does anyone have any opinions or suggestions about this? The Singing Badger 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• To explain further - It seems as if the overview and history should provide plenty of background to the "why", and the various arguments have gotten soooooooo long that it's a wonder anyone would actually read-thru to the candidates themselves. Another problem is if you post ALL the doubts up front, then double that for the Stratfordain response, then double it again for the anti-responses, once again, you never get to the candidates. To look from another angle, have you ever been to a debate where each candidate did not get to at least introduce themselves and their basic platform? From the incumbant to the newcomer, each are given this common courtesy. Of course, if the intent is to bog down the reader with so much stratfordian information that they get bleary-eyed and never even learn about the candidates, then I think we have a real problem here. - thanks, smatprt

Length of article

• But what about the length of the article???? It's already almost too long by half (according to wiki standards). Talk about getting bleary eyed! I would suggest tightening up the overview and history, introduce the candidates, and then seperate the pages from there: Stratfordian, Oxfordian, Baconian, etc.. As it is, almost all of these arguments are pretty thin and need expanding, which will only make the problem worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs)

• • Returning to take up some of the points in the above debate, just so that my views are "out there".
    • I don't give very much credence to the view expressed by User:Barryispuzzled above, that anti-Stratfordian views are difficult or impossible to source. Apart from the new evidence revealed in The Shakespeare Puzzle (which by our standards is original research and doesn't belong on this page anyway, there is plenty of source material available. John Mitchell's popular book on the subject, "Who Wrote Shakespeare", lists over 30 Oxfordian and Baconian authors in its bibliography. Sourcing should not be a problem for the anti-Stratfordians.
    • Barry does not have the moral high ground on the no personal attacks policy. To be honest I am more sympathetic to Paul B's criticism: if you want to be thought not narcissitic it would be better if you avoided the frequent statements/implications that you are better qualified to judge the authorship issue than Singing Badger, other editors, David Scott Kastan, the academic community etc.
    • There is NO SCOPE for a change of wikipedia policy on this page. Indeed, the discussion on and about this in recent weeks has made me realise why wikipedia so desperately needs the WP:V, WP:RS,WP:OR, WP:VAIN, WP:WEASEL (oh, and WP:NPA) policies and guidelines.
    • Obvious point arising from User:Smatprt's edit immediately above mine: Smatprt, do you realise there are already pages for Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory and Marlovian theory? If not, take a look at them. I think they answer the various questions posed above and in this edit summary about the page being a bit long, and where to put any new material.
    • I'm almost reluctant to say this after so much to-ing and fro-ing on the order of the sections in this page, but actually wasn't the order actually better when we started, i.e. here? I cannot see any merit in re-prioritising Oxford over Bacon.

I agree that this was more or less the best version. So I'd be happy to see it reverted to this and just add The Singing Badger's Stratfordian counter arguments that came afterwards. Puzzle Master 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • THESE COMMENTS UNFINISHED. I have a meeting, but I will return.never mind, discussion has moved on AndyJones 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Smatprt comments further:
• Yes, Andy, I realize there are already pages for the various theories - but that doesn't address the problem - by wiki standards, the article is way too big, not"a bit long" as you mention. I can see it getting way longer even without adding new sections. The question is - what do we do about in it's present state - how do we cut it diwn to the recommended 32kb? It seems to me that the only way would be to move all the detailed arguments to other pages. Is there any downside to this idea?
• re:postioning Oxford over Bacon - Just as Stratford is the orthodox candidate and deserves the number 1 position, Oxford (as the leading alternate candidate) deserves the 2nd position. Does that not make sense? (I do notice in the logs that Andy had no objections to the change when the edit was made). Thanks all - smatprt

Smartprt, one solution is to split off into separate articles the sections that are very complicated and lengthy. For example, I can envisage a separate article on the Strachey letter, although a short summary would still be needed on this page. Could we perhaps draw up a list of what seems to need splitting off? The downside is the difficulty of writing short summaries that would satisfy everyone. I feel tired just thinking about it! The Singing Badger 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern about POV of article

While I still think this is a fascinating article, I am concerned that it only presents the POV of those who doubt Shakespeare wrote his own works. In essence, almost every part of the article is a discussion of the different reasons why other people wrote Shakespeare's works with only the first paragraph of the overview and minor comments here and there disputing the Shakespearean authorship claims. A NPOV article should present both sides of this issue. What we need is major section of the article which disputes these claims--such as mentioning that there are actually more contempory references to Shakespeare than any other writer of that period and making more than a passing mention of the poems Ben Jonson and others wrote to eulogize Shakespeare. Because of these concerns I've placed a POV tag on this article.--Alabamaboy 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm willing to work with others here to create this section to balance out the article.--Alabamaboy 14:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned; I think most items in the article state the orthodox position alongside the anti-Stratfordian one. But you're right that there is a key element missing: a section about the perceived absence of evidence about Shakespeare. It could be structured as follows:

1. Admirers of Shakespeare are often disappointed by the lack of information about Shakespeare's life, his personality, and his ideas about art and literature.
2. The orthodox position is that this is indeed disappointing but only to be expected given the passage of time, and that in fact we know more about Shakespeare than we do about other contemporary dramatists.
3. The anti-Stratfordian position is that the lack of information is not simply disappointing but suspicious, because there is no proof that WS had the qualifications to write the plays.

That, it seems to me, is the starting-point for anti-Stratfordianism, and needs to be stated near the beginning of the article. Am I right, or is it an over-simplificiation? The Singing Badger 16:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That'd work for me. As I said, I really like this article (although it is rather long, as per the other discussions on this page) but if a readers comes at this article without knowing anything else about Shakespeare they might thing these arguements are the dominant view. The section you descibe would address this. Perhaps we could also expand the overview to explain why the Shakespearean authorship claims are not the dominant academic and historian view.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm less concerned than you (Alabamaboy) also, although perhaps for different reasons than those expressed by Badger. There's no doubt in my mind that the pre-Barryispuzzled version of this article was extremely pro-Stratfordian POV. Obviously that's a POV I share, but I also think that NPOV is better, and that some vigorous advocacy of anti-Stratfordian positions helps to take us there. (Also, I regard the current state of the article as a bit of a temporary blip. This article is watched - and its neutrality defended - by several very active wikipedians.) I suggest we keep the tag up for a couple of days and review the situation, then. AndyJones 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm here, yes, I think Badger's "starting point" point is good. Put it up. AndyJones 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys offer an opinion on my query about the article's structure above? I think it's relevant to Alabamaboy's concerns. The Singing Badger 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the comment I started making earlier today: that the ordering was better before Oxford was moved to the top of the candidates list, and before discussion of the candidates was moved above more general points. I think your (Badger's) order is better than the current one. AndyJones 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this last comment about ordering. To me, this article is now a mess. I don't see the benefit of the re-structuring. Surely the focus should be on what serves the article not which candidate gets the best advertising. I thought the structure was fine after my changes although I thought the Oxfordian argument was under-represented. Presumably, they can be supplied in the dedicated article on Oxfordian theory. Maybe Shakspere is under-represented too but many arguments are supplied with Stratfordian counter arguments and if they are not then perhaps they should be. This is work for others. I would dispute that Oxford is an important candidate. He died in 1604 so he's certainly had it with The Tempest and Macbeth and any other play that alludes to events after 1604 (Quiz Question: how many such allusions can you come up with?). To manipulate the dating of the plays by denying these allusions is extremely naughty! Nevertheless, I think he deserves a better case being made out here as does Marlowe. Puzzle Master 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Badger - it's smatprt re: " I can envisage a separate article on the Strachey letter, although a short summary would still be needed on this page. Could we perhaps draw up a list of what seems to need splitting off? The downside is the difficulty of writing short summaries that would satisfy everyone. I feel tired just thinking about it! The Singing Badger 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. Wherever the discussion of the Strachey letter goes, we should all be advised that current scholarship, some unpublished and some accepted or in press with leading peer reviewed journals, is in the process of radically transforming the accepted "consensus" view of the role of the Strachey letter as a source for Shakespeare. As a preview of what is coming, please check out this exchange that David Lindleyhad recently with David Kathman. Lindley, for those not familiar with him, is the editor of the Cambridge University edition of The Tempest. Notice that he stated in 2001 that while he still felt Strachey was a "possible" source for the Tempest, it was certainly not a "necessary" one. Let us please construct a page that does justice to the diversity of critical opinion on this subject and takes into consideration the fact that, currently, authoritative views are in the period of transition with regard to the question.--71.206.48.32 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a good starting point. Another thought is a better summary of the "for" and "against" Stratford arguments - one summary each a relative size and not too long, then relegate all these endless "common arguments" to separate or related articles ie: the 1604 question could cover a number of topics for and against several candidates.
• I agree with Barry that the page is a mess. Always was, still is - but I think it it due to the length. Quite frankly, for the non-scholar the article reads much better and a heck of alot more interesting.
• I restate my belief that to go into detailed arguments that present "Stratfordian", "Oxfordian" & "Baconian" points of view (such as Strachey) makes no sense without knowing a bit about the candidates. The only benefit I see in relegating the candidates to the bottom of an endless article is to make the reader so tired that they never get there. Am I surprised that orthodox and stratfordian writers don't want to see the candidates at all? Not really. I am just hoping that a sense of fairness will prevail here.
• and I agree with Andy (a shock, I know) when he says that there are plenty of Oxfordian sources. There are also orthodox sources that serve the anti-stratfordian argument quite well. Of course, deleting sources should be a no, no... hopefully that won't happen again!
• finally - Barry needs to get past denying Oxford is a major candidate. Oxfordians have made a plausible case for on the 1604 issue, although it gets scant treatment in the current article. Hopefully that argument will be updated soon. In the meantime, it's impossible to deny Oxford's frontrunner status (after Stratford, of course) as far as the general public, the press, and even certain segments of academia are concerned. It is a growning movement, as can be attested to the growth in debates, conferences, books and articles that we all have seen. You can't simply close your eyes and pretend it's not there.

thanks all, smatprt

I'll be frank. I think you have no interest in how the article reads and that your agenda is to get Oxford as close as possible to the top of the page to promote his cause. There's something in psychology called 'projection' when you blame another for something you're guilty of. Denying the allusions to events after 1604 is something you need to take responsibility for. How many ad hoc hypotheses do you need to counter this problem with his case? I'd like to see the arguments for his case put in the Oxfordian section. You could contribute best by doing this yourself instead of embarking on a gratuitous advertising campaign, destroying the good work of other editors here in the process. Puzzle Master 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

a little more...

re: Badger's idea of what to split off -

• After re-reading the article from top to bottom (when I finally get there) with NPOV, I agree that the article lacks balance. Stratford's overview is real weak and needs strengthening.
• I think first and foremost, the Overview needs a lot of work - perhaps 2 sub-sections, the first, a summary, lays out the conventional theory (better than it does now), followed by a summary of the reasons for doubt, which right now is better served, but still sloppy and incomplete.
• Then - introduce the candidates and their summaries.
• Then - now here is the fun part - move EVERYTHING else to "Common Arguments" and let everyone go wild...
• Those arguments will need to be divided into related catagories (like I mentioned above) and then have a menu of arguments to choose from.

What do you think? - smatprt

• Structuring. Sorry, I still think you're wrong. You're treating Shakespeare as an equal candidate to Oxford et al. He isn't. He is the guy who must be disproven before Oxford et al, can be recommended as alternatives. That's what the original structure did. The charges of manipulation can equally well be applied to your structure: perhaps you want to put Oxford at the top and hope readers won't notice all that awkward evidence in favour of WS at the bottom? (I don't mean to be nasty, I'm just saying it cuts both ways). And honestly, I don't think people read hyperlinked documents from top to bottom; there are links to the candidates in the Contents box at the top, so anyone who's interested can jump down to them easily. We seem to have a consensus against your change (including one anti-Stratfordian), so I think it ought to be restored to how it was unless you have anything new to say. The stuff that requires knowledge of the candidates can probably be rewritten for clarity.
• By the way, I personally don't care which candidate comes first of the three.
• The idea of 'everybody going wild' sounds like a nightmare. One way of reworking the 'Common Arguments' section might be to create six sections that follow the list of forms of evidence in the overview: "(1) supposed ambiguities or lacunae in the historical evidence supporting Shakespeare's authorship; (2) the notion that the plays require a level of education greater than that which Shakespeare is known to have possessed; (3) perceived doubts expressed by his contemporaries; (4) plays that he appeared to be unavailable to write; (5) coded messages apparently hidden in the works that identify another author; (6) perceived parallels between the characters in Shakespeare's works and the life of the favoured candidate." A few well-known examples could be provided for each, and then more detailed ones in other pages. (By the way 1 and 4 should probably be conflated).
• If attempting a major restructuring, I suggest that editors try experimenting in a sandbox before tackling the article itself: like this one - Shakespearean authorship/draft. The Singing Badger 02:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • sorry I didn't read your note before I tried an experiment. Take a look at the page and see what you think. I think if you beef up the Conventional argument, which is at the TOP, you will all get what you wish, which is keeping Stratford in the key positon. I think it certianly flows better
    • everybody going wild is what is going on now. Every day the page gets bigger and bigger and bigger.... I don't think you can deny that it's out of control.
    • no, I don't think you are being nasty and I certianly get where you are coming from. I was wondering what you meant by consensus. do two stratfordians and a baconian, all anti-Oxford, really make a consensus? I do see some editors have chased off more than one Oxfordian. I am concerned at that trend, if it is one.
    • similiarly, in your "to-do list" you say: Many typical anti-Stratfordian arguments are still missing, e.g. the claim that Shakespeare was not eulogized when he died. Then you say: Citations are needed for many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments. Ideally, these citations should be to the 'classic' texts in the field, in order to avoid giving undue weight to not-yet established or minority anti-Stratfordian theories. Does this mean that anti-Stratfordian arguments can or cannot be sourced by anti-Stratfordan writers? Is ogburn classic? is Cairncross? I admit to being confused...

thanks,smatprt

I suggest a reversion back to pre-smatprt edits then perhaps he could improve the Oxfordian theory article. I thought the balance of arguments and structuring was previously more or less fine. To me, the article is now inferior. Puzzle Master 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Puzzle master, can you please define "inferior"? and "fine"? Without more definition, these words strike me as unhelpful. Thanks.--71.206.48.32 13:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The structure of the article is also a concern to me. The "Common arguements" section should definately come before the sections on the possible candidates. Otherwise, I agree with the The Singing Badger's concerns about the article's structure.--Alabamaboy 13:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Wasn't the start of this discussion a dialogue on shortening the article? Why has no one (other than Badger) offered any ideas at all on this? At least I offered a few suggestions. So - back to basics - as the article is almost double the WIKI standard, how is it going to be shortened????? smaptrt
    • Badger - You are wrong about me wanting equal placement for Stratford and the candidates. I agree that Stratford is King and the rest can only follow, but do you seriously believe that Oxford is not regarded as the leading alternate candidate? And does not the leading candidate deserve to be treated as such?
    • Also your reverse premise suggesting (in a non nasty way) that "perhaps you want to put Oxford at the top and hope readers won't notice all that awkward evidence in favour of WS at the bottom?" also is not a correct assessment of my edit. i don't want Oxford at the top, that belongs to Stratford.

• • • I agree. And I also agree that it would be helpful if Wiki editors would refrain from attributing view to other wiki editors that they do not hold. That cheapens the discussion and weakens the collective effort to improve the page.--71.206.48.32 13:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding awkward evidence for any candidate - that's the stuff that should go on a common argument page - not hidden at the bottom of a overly long article. Frankly, I don't believe anything should be buried under 57 kb of material and neither do wiki standards. It turns off students, kids, those with learning disabilites, etc. Do you really want to do that? ...smatprt

Sonnets graphic

I think one reason that the article has too many kilobytes is the number and size of the graphics. While it is interesting to see it, I think that the Sonnets graphic trivialises more than enhances the article. There is the argument that the hyphenated 'Shake-speare' had no precedent in Stratford and that it looks suspiciously like a pseudonym but this is by no means a strong anti-Stratfordian argument. I think it can be deleted and the space created would help the rest of the article. Puzzle Master 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Puzzle Master, you puzzle me to no end. Speaking as an anti-Stratfordian, first exposed to the question in 1989 through the excellent Frontline Documentary, The Shakespeare Mystery, which despite strong behind the scenes attempt at censorship by Stratfordian academics, was seen by several million viewers, I can confirm that the hyphenated name on the Sonnets title page is indeed one of the most provocative pieces of evidence in the entire puzzle about Shakespearean authorship. No encyclopedia article of any merit that purports to discuss the question should be without it.--BenJonson 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Barry, I don't think images are counted in the article size; they're uplinked from a separate location, so they're not a problem. I have no problem with the image itself, but I agree that the point about hyphenation needs to be actually explained.

OK I accept your point about the non-contribution to kB size of the graphic. My main point though was not that the Sonnets graphic needed explanation but that the graphic need not be there at all. There are stronger anti-Stratfordian points than the hyphenated Shake-speare. The graphic is using up text area. Puzzle Master 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Puzzle Master, you seem to want to shift your ground with only one purpose in mind: to prevent a powerfully relevant and important graphic image from being seen by public readers. I wonder why you would be so determined that the graphic, which you have now been informed takes up no space at all, should not appear. You say that it "trivializes" the article and that it "need not be there at all." Well, as King Lear might say "Nothing need be be anywhere," and as Gloucestor would say "why hath the quality of nothing such a need to hide itself"? (I quote from memory; please don't excoriate me for missing a beat or two). With that quality of reasoning, I think we should all hang up our hats and go home and forget about writing an article. A good place to start in this discussion would be honesty. The reasons you've so far cited for opposing the inclusion of the image have so far not been convincing as a basis to establish policy and are even less convincing in terms of explaining your motivations (which are relevant only because of the huge discrepancy between the strength of your opposition and the quality of your explanation). What's going on? Thanks for your further elaboration.--BenJonson 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

OK, Smartprt STOP EDITING FOR A WHILE! You're making things more confusing as we try to fix the problems. Let's sort out a compromise, THEN edit. The Singing Badger 16:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the candidates should be so far up, but I do accept the point that some of the 'common arguments' are confusing without knowledge of the candidates.

Here's my compromise structure:

• Overview
• Description of the 'starting point' of anti-Stratfordianism: i.e. the disappointment and suspicion regarding the lack of information about WS (see my more detailed ideas above)
• Common arguments that don't require knowledge of another candidate, for example...
  • Shakespeare's education and his class
  • The idea of hidden authorship in the Renaissance
  • Doubts expressed by contemporaries
• The sections on the candidates, with Colonel Gadaffi's theory at the top (OK, that was a joke..., really I don't care who's first)
  • Oxford
  • Bacon
  • Marlowe
  • Neville
  • Others
• Common arguments that do require some knowledge of the candidates, for example...
  • The Strachey letter
  • Raleigh's execution
  • Geographical knowledge, etc...

How does that look? I think it might work. The Singing Badger 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Hey Badger - I think your compromise structure is very good. Thanks for bearing with me. When you have time, can you answer my question from above about the to do list? (similiarly, in your "to-do list" you say: Many typical anti-Stratfordian arguments are still missing, e.g. the claim that Shakespeare was not eulogized when he died. Then you say: Citations are needed for many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments. Ideally, these citations should be to the 'classic' texts in the field, in order to avoid giving undue weight to not-yet established or minority anti-Stratfordian theories. Does this mean that anti-Stratfordian arguments can or cannot be sourced by anti-Stratfordan writers? Is ogburn classic? is Cairncross? I admit to being confused...) thanks - smatprt (love the Gadaffi)

Oh yeah, you can certainly use anti-Stratfordian writers; Ogburn is most definitely 'classic' (I don't know anything about Cairncross). Maybe 'classic' is misleading. That sentence is simply making the point that Wikipedia isn't a venue for introducing new ideas and theories that haven't been properly published. So any properly published anti-Stratfordian text is an acceptable source. I'll rewrite it, I think. The Singing Badger 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New version and au revoir

I am leaving this page for a long while. But I have overhauled the article in the light of the above discussion. It's still a bit messy and too long but I hope it provides a better basis on which to begin the task of shifting material into separate pages. If people don't like it, feel free to revert and try something else. Have fun, and no fighting! The Singing Badger 02:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I love this new version and it addressed my concerns. I have some good references for those "missing citations" and will supply then in the coming days. Many thanks for your excellent work on this article!--Alabamaboy 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done good work too. Perhaps, if we have a reasonable consensus here, we should take this article as the "stable" version and insist that any major changes should now be discussed first in the Talk section on penalty of a reversion taking place. Democratic editing is all very well but I am concerned for the reader who, like the editors who argued for its present state, will suffer from unjustified changes to the article. Puzzle Master 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there is still quite a to-do list left. Perhaps you could start addressing that instead of worrying about how to limit democratic editing. Just who is it that defines a "major change" anyway?

I'm thinking, perhaps you could start addressing that instead of trying to get your man Oxford to the top of the article. I found your original moving of Oxford to above Bacon aggressive and so I returned Bacon to his original position being chronologically and alphabetically before Oxford. Puzzle Master

I support the Puzzle Master's view to take this version as the "stable" version. A number of editors have done the same thing with the Klu Klux Klan article. Before making massive changes we ask editors to first seek consensus for their changes. If editors refuse to seek consensus then the other editors revert the article to the consensus version. Of course, there have been a number of edits since the The Singing Badger's last version, so what is the consensus version: The current version or the The Singing Badger's version? Once people weigh in we can maybe arrive at a stable place with this article.--Alabamaboy 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Barry - I am. I have been "aggressively" working on to do list numbers 3 & 5. And what have you done lately??

I am reverting back to the comprmise structure because...well,...that WAS the compromise. Moving your man Bacon back to the top ignores the discussion and ignores the FACT that, much as you hate it, Oxford is the leading alternate candidate and should be acknowleged as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs)

Surely this Barryispuzzled/Alabamaboy suggestion is called owning an article, which is something we have a policy against. Can everyone please at least address that before we can say we have a consensus. And yes, I think the version Singing Badger hath left us is the stable version, to the extent that we have one. AndyJones 17:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy is correct. Wow...did I just say that?

Don't worry, it gets easier with practice ;-) AndyJones 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, I think we can all live within Badger's structure - but he never encouraged us to stop adding new or updated information. thanks, smatprt

I like the Singing Badger's version so I'm for reverting to that. Also like the idea of his rewrite being the 'stable' version. Bodleyman 12:36 9 October 2006

Yes, I agree. I think his version was better than the one you reverted from. I also think we can and should discuss the changes here, though, rather than rejecting them out-of-hand. Also, Badger isn't like Jesus Christ or someone. We can make our own decisions here irrespective of what he encouraged, or didn't encourage, us to do. AndyJones 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Singing Badger is the new Messiah! :) Bodleyman 12:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you done your revert, yet? I don't see you in the article history. AndyJones 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the ownership issue, that is not what this would be. The article will be open to any major edits or changes as long as consensus is sought for these changes. In short, there is consensus among the editors that this is a good version and therefore editors should seek consensus before making new changes. With the KKK article, this has worked well. Since implemention a large number of changes have been made to the KKK article and we've avoided the edit warring that used to plague the article. All we ask is that someone first raise any major changes on the talk page. Ownership of an article refers to an editor not allowing anyone else to make changes to said article. What we are trying to do is allowed by what it states on Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, specifically, "Although working on an article does not entitle one to 'own' the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she 'owns' the article or not." In short, editors should work with previous article editors, especially when consensus has been achieved. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alabama, can you define what you regard as a major change. For example, working off the to-do list, I added two sections recently - one on hyphenation and one on the 1604 problem. Is that a major change in your definition? I don't think so, but I would like to hear your opinion. As I see it, there have been no "major changes" as of yet. Badger (although no diety) did broker the compromise structure, which was:

• Overview
• Description of the 'starting point' of anti-Stratfordianism: i.e. the disappointment and suspicion regarding the lack of information about WS
• Common arguments that don't require knowledge of another candidate
• The sections on the candidates
  • Oxford
  • Bacon
  • Marlowe
  • Neville
  • Others
• Common arguments that do require some knowledge of the candidates, for example...

Does anyone believe that this structure been violated? - thanks, smatprt

Surely adding whole sections is a major change. I'd personally suggest that anything which isn't just correcting grammar errors or improving formatting is "major" for this purpose (that is, anything which adds a complete sentence or requires a separate source) AndyJones 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, why do we need to argue the meaning of "major" anyway. We can simply agree that (among ourselves at least) we want discussion before making ALL changes. AndyJones 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely adding whole sections is a major change. I'd personally suggest that anything which isn't just correcting grammar errors or improving formatting is "major" for this purpose (that is, anything which adds a complete sentence or requires a separate source) AndyJones 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alabamaboy has got to be right 'cos if changes aren't discussed you can't defend the quality so there ain't no point trying to build an article. As for the order of the candidates (and I don't really care cos I'm an agnostic) but historically wasn't it Shakespeare first, then Bacon (1856) then Marlowe (1895) then Oxford (1920) then whoever else so maybe that should be it. Bodleyman 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I think to have extended discussion before ALL changes that add a complete sentence or requires a seperate source would be excessivley time-consuming, and will only encourage the kind of bullying and harassing that is evident throughout this discussion page.
    • I also think everything on the to-do list needs to be accomplished in a timely manner, without a lot of advance censorship. For example, the to-do list requests that "Many typical anti-Stratfordian arguments are still missing, e.g. the claim that Shakespeare was not eulogized when he died." Further, this page has discussed a number of arguments, only to have them never materialize on the page - arguments about the hyphen or the 1604 problem, for example. I added these sections with numerous sources, both orthodox and anti-S, as there is no legitimate reason to keep them off the page. I don't consider these additional arguments major changes. Changing the structure is a major change and one that was discussed at length. I agreed to a compromise structure and have no intention of changing that structure. I am not thrilled about the compromise structure, but in the spirit of consensus, I will stand by it.
    • There was much early discussion regarding Stratford's position on the page, with the consensus being that due to the fact that he is the one ordained by conventional scholars as the author, and he is the one that the public recognizes as the author, then all arguments must start with him, and that his history and facts should come first, etc. I submit that the same reasoning should be applied to each candidate. At this point in time, AFTER Stratford, the majority of scholars, as well as the general public, consider Oxford the leading alternate candidate. As such, after attempting to topple or support the Stratford mountain, scholars need to scale Oxford hill. The public, as well, should be considered in this debate and anyone investigating the authorship issue is going to want to hear about the main guy, as well as his primary opponent. -- Best regards, smatprt

Order of candidates

• "... I don't care who's first ..." The Singing Badger 16:35 5 Oct
• "The ordering was better before Oxford was moved to the top of the candidates list" Andy Jones 19:27 4 Oct
• "... historically wasn't it Shakespeare first then Bacon (1856) then Marlowe (1895) then Oxford (1920) ... so maybe that should be it" Bodleyman 16:17 9 Oct
• "I returned Bacon to his original position being chronologically and alphabetically before Oxford" Puzzle Master

Sorry smatprt but this is my evidence for a consensus. Following a suggestion above, I've rearranged to mirror history. Anyway, the Baconian society (of which I am not a member) would question your popularity claim for the Earl of Oxford. In answer to your question "And what have you done lately??" I can cheerfully say that I provided many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments in this article. Puzzle Master 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonnets graphic

Removed Sonnets graphic which both myself and The Singing Badger (who removed it) gave counter-consensus to. Puzzle Master 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation of Shake-speare name

Argh! Sorry but this argument is soooo feeble. If you're going to go for an anti-Stratfordian argument the best thing is to show that Shakspere could not have been there to write the play. Puzzle Master 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of this article is to inform readers about the historic basis for doubts about the authorship of the plays (which, by its very definition and title it seems to me that it must be), then removing this graphic is terrible mistake. No credible arguments for its removal have been advanced in this discussion. Phrases such as "it need to be there" are not arguments, but slogans. --BenJonson 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dating of Tempest

To smtprt, sorry, but if you date The Tempest to 1604 you simply have not read the William Strachey letter (Wright, Louis B., A Voyage to Virginia in 1609, University Press of Virginia, 1964). Get a copy, read it, and look for the many verbal parallels with The Tempest. I'm trying to allow for the fact that you have a right to contribute to this article but I'm now getting irritated that you simply have not done your research. This article is intended to inform the public not give them unresearched points of view. You've also been asked by The Singing Badger to stop editing until you gain consensus which Alabamaboy has also requested but I notice you have decided you are going change this article come hell or high water. Puzzle Master 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barry. If you think that the Strachey letter is a necessary source for the Tempest, you have not been keeping up with current scholarship on this matter. In another place on this page I already provided you with a 2001 posting to the Shaksper listserve indicating that Strachey is by no means a necessary source for the play. This was in 2001. Where have you been?

If Strachey is not a necessary (let alone a proven) source, then the chronological maginot line of 1611 simply collapses. It would be unwise, to say the least, for Wikipedia to promulgate the 1611 date and the dependence on Strachey as a fact, when they are intepretations. It may well be the case that many or even most orthodox Shakespearean scholars (o, sorry for that "weasel word!") accept this interpretation. But it is still an interpretation, as your own description above makes clear. By the way, I have read Strachey, and I have also read enough of the travel literature of the 16th c. to understand, like Lindley, that the claims for Strachey's predominance as a source are simply bogus. There are several other sources whose influence on the Bard is far more definite than Strachey's 1610 pamphlet. --BenJonson 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through and edited the Strachey article--among the more salient changes are:

1) supplying the citation for the claim that the Strachey letter circulated in London before the Nov. 1611 staging of Temp.; 2) Clarification of language asserting that the letter was written to the Virginia Company (someone is writing entries who hasn't read the original documents -- the letter was addressed to a noble lady, presumed to have some association to the Company, but there is no evidence at all that it was addressed to the Company or was in any way an official document); 3) Added the quote from David Lindley, to the effect that while he believes Strachey is a *possible* source, it is not a necessary one; 4) Strengthened the historical context of the discussion with a few relevant dates 5) Eliminated the claim that the letter circulated in the Virginia Company in 1609, in the Baconian addenda. There is no evidence for this; Indeed, as Stritmatter and Kositsky argue in a forthcoming article in the Review of English Studies (November 2007), the best evidence indicates that the letter was not completed until sometime in 1612 or later.

I look forward to comments anyone has on these modifications.

Accusation of bullying

Smtprt wrote "... will only encourage the kind of bullying and harassing that is evident throughout this discussion page". I object to this accusation and I'll tell you why. As far as I can see, the agenda you came in with was a marketing strategy to get Oxford as high as possible up the article. I think you have no interest in the quality of the article and from what I have seen (and this is my personal point of view) the arguments you have added to the article are not well constructed. You appear not to be interested in consensus and I advance the charge that it is you who have decided to bully your own points of view into the article (yet another example of your projecting). Others may level the charge against me that you have as much right to edit as I do but I care only about the quality of this article and I take the same view of the weakness of your constructed arguments as I would those of an esoterically inclined Baconian. I actually share your view that Shakspere didn't do it but your research is going to have to be much better than this. Sorry, but this is the way I feel about your contributions so far. Puzzle Master 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shakspere leaving acting

Here's something we can agree on “at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, tis’ supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor.” The evidence from Ben Jonson's Workes (1616) is that the King's Men did not have Shakspere acting in the following: Sejanus (1603), The Alchemist (1610) and Cataline (1611). So it is reasonable to assume that he was not actively acting in this period. However, one should be careful about drawing authorship conclusions from this evidence. Puzzle Master 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Barry, Barry - if you are going to simply make stuff up, then what is the point of discussion? Singer Badger wrote:

"Barry, I don't think images are counted in the article size; they're uplinked from a separate location, so they're not a problem. I have no problem with the image itself, but I agree that the point about hyphenation needs to be actually explained. So...I "actually" explained it and sourced the explanations. And I am putting the graphic back. (There are very few graphics around that illustrate the authorship question, but this is one of them. It is certainly not the strongest issue, but an issue it remains, and any experienced editor will tell you that pictures and graphics make an article MORE readable.)

• • • also - Badger asked that I stop editing until the new compromise structure was in place, and "THEN EDIT". later, he went on to advise: Oh yeah, you can certainly use anti-Stratfordian writers; Ogburn is most definitely 'classic' (I don't know anything about Cairncross). Maybe 'classic' is misleading. That sentence is simply making the point that Wikipedia isn't a venue for introducing new ideas and theories that haven't been properly published. So any properly published anti-Stratfordian text is an acceptable source.'
    • Tempest dating: go here: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm

I think Strachey has been destroyed.

I have it on good authority that that brief article is only the first of several, at least one of them already accepted at a major English literary journal, that will thoroughly demolish, once and for all, the notion of Strachey's influence on The Tempest and will also demonstrate that The Tempest was written and known to London literary audiences before 1604.As this argument is not yet entirely published, the Wiki editorial team cannot of course make use of it entirely. However, it may be useful to understand that the Kositsky/Stritmatter article on the Fellowship website has the narrow purpose of confuting Kathman's silly arguments; it makes no pretense to a thorough presentation of the case that can be made against the "consensus date" of The Tempest. And since we are on this subject, let me also convey another intriguing development. In an article in the 2005 issue of Shakespeare Yearbook, Penney McCarthy has sounded a clarion call against the entire edifice of the "consensus chronology" of orthodox Shakespeareans, and has argued that the Tempest was written before 1599. Note the source. You can wriggle and wiggle as much as you want, but at least one established Shakespearean scholar thinks that The Tempest was written eleven years before Strachey picked up his pen, and has published this claim, and the evidence for it, in a leading peer-reviewed journal. So maybe its time for those who have been depending on the date of The Tempest as a mighty bulwark to defend against the Oxford Huns and Vandals should cut their losses and get real for a change. The 1611 Tempest date, and the alleged influence of Strachey on the play, are theories, not facts. And they are theories that are swiftly disintegrating before our very eyes.--BenJonson 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hyphenation - if it makes you feel better to call names and act superior then go right ahead. As far as I'm concern the hyphenation issue is just a small part of the puzzle, oh master. No big deal, except the one you are making.
    • It's nice that you quote yourself in the consensus, but not me.
    • And...*"... I don't care who's first ..." The Singing Badger 16:35 5 Oct - yeah, he sure sounds on board...NOT.
    • And *"The ordering was better before Oxford was moved to the top of the candidates list" Andy Jones 19:27 4 Oct - Well, gee whiz, that's not the edit you made either...

So much for your consensus.

• • • Finally - my original proposal was to move ALL the candidates up AND move Oxford to the top. Burying anything important under 60kb of text is ridiculous. I agreed to the compromise structure offered by Badger and have stuck to that structure. You, oh master of misquotes, have not. If your scholarship is anything like your quoting technique, then we should all be very afraid. Sorry, but I am not impressed.
    • Great, The Bacon Society can bury their head in the sand and stop reading newpapers, magazines and new books about Oxford and instead focus on all those new published books about Bacon....wait a minute...THERE IS NONE! (Well maybe a few, but get real about Oxford's popularity. It just drives you crazy doesn't it?
    • and more name calling....How OLD are you? Regards, smatprt

Tch, tch ... so everyone is ganging up on you huh and I'm Mr Bad Guy? For me, I think that what you fail to appreciate is that I and others have been debating these issues long before you arrived and have struggled to improve this article BY CONSENSUS. So I guess I feel annoyed when someone charges in thinking that consensus doesn't apply to them. I also notice that when someone suggests it should apply to you, you play the victim ... suddenly we're all bullying you. What's more, even when you're outvoted (Sonnets graphic and candidate order) I see that you still intend to FORCE your changes into the article. So I hope we're now clear who's the aggressor here. I read The Tempest link and as you probably know, the play was first performed for King James at Whitehall on 1 Nov 1611, a monarch who had a special interest in the Virginia colony (not least because he signed the Second Virginia Charter). There is also an allusion in the play to Stephano Janiculo who came to James's court in Dec 1609 masquerading as the Prince of Moldovia (hence the characters Stephano and Trinculo). Evidently Shakespeare knew about what would interest James then. The trouble is, it might be true that you could find alternative sources to justify a pre-1604 composition to a number of problem plays, but the probability of their being the real source must diminish the greater is the number of these alternative sources that you invoke, especially if the sources you are trying to dismiss have a relation to contemporary events (and ones that interested King James). You'd have to dismiss all allusions to the Virginia colony in The Tempest, the Gunpowder Plot from 1605 and Middleton's witches from 1613 in Macbeth and so on, in exchange for less contemporary sources. Sorry, but you'd have to need Oxford to be Shake-speare to accept that. Puzzle Master 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, as predicted the Sonnets graphic and candidate order has been changed back. Now then, who's really the bully who's determined to get his own way?! :) Puzzle Master 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Not "everyone" barry, just you. (Andy once misquoted me and apologized, and has been reasonably civilized since).
    • Quite a prediction, given that I told you I was putting it back in our prior exchange.
    • Surely we all see that YOUR edit places YOUR candidate back on top, and in the process, moved Oxford even lower than the original order that you say everyone loved. Yes, you have overseen this page quite well...
    • I find no policy that requires "voting" on pictures or graphics. I see no point in playing that game. As far as deleting properly sourced material that does not suit your agenda - I see THAT as a far more serious issue.
    • The problem with ANY of the plays that betray a second hand is that YOU don't know the circumstances of those revisions. Was it a "collaboration" or was one author finishing the work of another? Was Timon or Pericles really finished by Shakespeare? Pleeeeease. My vision of Shakespeare imagines him rolling in his grave if he thought either of those plays was regarded as a finished product. And how on earth did the Sonnets get published without the author's consent? And that "ever-living" poet remark? It sure sounds like the author was dead and some of his personal poems and unfinished works slipped out - to be "botched" together by other hands.
    • And have you not heard of revisions by Actors and theatre managers, slipping in topical references at the drop of a hat? Pleeeease. I think the 1604 issue is a huge smokescreen that anti-Oxfordians have jumped on in a vain and desperate attempt to stop Oxford's current momentum (the very momentum you refuse to recognize.)
    • I don't "need" Oxford to be Shake-speare. I believe he is the best current candidate, but I do not believe he acted alone. The Shake-speare machine of Elizabethan England was a money-making operation and it did not stop with any one person's death. It was certainly interrupted in 1604, but within a few years it was back up and running. The fact that Oxford and Bacon were acquaintances, is far more interesting, as is Oxford's relationship with Marlowe, Lyly, Munday, Peele and the rest. But I am not a researcher here - I am an editor. When I see missing information, I want to provide it. I was correctly asked to focus more on sources, and I have. - regards, smatprt

Don't take this bad, I'm just asking. Using this argument, couldn't I say that marlowe wrote all the plays then prior to 1593 and actors changed lines to make the plays topical? Couldn't I say Henry VIII wrote the plays?!!! Bodleyman 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes you could...that is why this dating issue is such a scam (although you would need to make marlowe or H8 fit into all the other evidence - like explaining what happened in 1604 to interrupt the publication of plays). Topical references in multi-authored or revised plays are simply inconclusive. To be strictly for or against any candidate based on this kind of dating does a disservice to all the other arguments. Not to worry - I know you were just asking and not attacking....
    • didn't know H8 was a candidate....(lol)
    • Seriously, could Marlowe have contributed to the canon? In the early history plays....maybeeeeeee.... - thanks, smatprt

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I'm missing something but if we can't be sure of the dating how do you know the writing stopped in 1604? cheers Bodleyman 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in “Shakespeare by Another Name” stresses the following: from 1593-1603 “the publication of Shake-speare’s plays appeared at the rate of 2 per year. Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent” and stopped publication for almost 5 years. Anderson also states “the early history of reprints …also point to 1604 as a watershed year,” and noting that during the years of 1593-1604, when an inferior or pirated text was published, it was typically followed by a genuine text that was “newly augmented” or “corrected”. Anderson summarizes, “After 1604, the “newly correct(ing) and augment(ing) stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down”.

• • I'm not saying the writing stopped - it was merely taken over by other hands... cheers, smatprt

This is a very important point, Smatprt, and any article on the Oxford candidacy should stress it. The pattern of publication of play quartos is utterly contrary to orthodox assumptions about authorship. During what are allegedly the author's mature and most productive years, he published almost no new plays. Lear, Pericles, the Sonnets, and T&C are the only new Shakespearean texts to appear in print during the 18 years 1604-1622. It appears that Shakespeare did indeed "take his leave from the stage," to coin a metaphor, in around 1604. Certainly he took his leave from the world of publishing, and that he perished in lieu of publishing is certainly one valid interpretation of this pattern of evidence. In more than fifteen years of studying the authorship question, I have yet to hear an orthodox theory of any merit that can explain this disruption in the production of new play quartos coincident with the death of a major candidate in the authorship question. Most orthodox scholars (sorry, its the weasel in me) won't even admit the facts, and certainly seem unable to propose an interpretation of them.--BenJonson 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dethroning a deity

People tend to worship Shakespeare, consciously or un-. Those who doubt the Stratford claim tend, it seems to me, to drape the mantle of secular deity on the shoulders of whoever the new god is believed to be (Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe, et al), and to grow quite touchy at the temerity of those who champion rival gods (though usually not quite as touchy as defenders of orthodoxy become at the mere suggestion that the child of illiterates who raised illiterate children was not the author of "The Tempest" (picture Prospero not bothering to teach Miranda to read). This tendency seems to be at work here.

Wikipedia's credibility on this issue will suffer badly if a fair representation of all arguments is not present. I am widely read on this issue. As a result, I have become convinced that Oxford is at the heart of the authorship. Others, of course, will read the evience differently. But, if we wish to speak of "consensus," any fair sampling of media articles on the authorship issue will confirm that Oxford is currently cited as the most credible of the alternative candidates, with new evidence piling up regularly (read Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare By Another Name"). Oxford's status as the frontrunner can't really be disputed. But the authorship is up in the air. For any one camp to claim a consensus that confers the right to limit space for another is both premature and anti-scholarly.

Please cite for me the number of doctorates awarded by major American universities for dissertations based on the premise of Bacon's authorship, or Marlowe's, or Mary Herbert's (such as Dr. Roger Stritmatter's dissertation on Oxford's Geneva Bible awared by the University of Massachusetts). Please cite for me the number of scholarly symposia organized around the growing evidence for these candidates (such as Concordia University's "Shakespeare Authorship Conference" or the Utrecht Authorship Conference in The Netherlands). The Oxford authorship is attracting serious scholarly attention. The others, not.

But to ignore or censor the case for any candidate, or to try to wish the issue away entirely, is at this point a Luddite stance. Wikipedia will look pretty lame if this section becomes hidebound either to orthodoxy or to any one camp.

An allowed fool

Oxford a threat; Bacon not

"***Regarding fairness: After re-reading the article once gain, can someone explain why the 3 sections that are pro-bacon (crytograms, strachey and geography), are allowed to stand whereas anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted? Since all of these (except strachey) poke holes in the Stratford argument, I truly fail to see the difference. Is there a double standard here? I think this illustrates why I feel that there is an anti-oxford bias that permeates this article. Anyone?Smatprt 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)"

And now, a partisan follow-up: Could the deletion of pro-Oxford material have anything to do with the fact that Oxford is quite threatening to orthodoxy, while Bacon has become a quaint joke?

It has everything to do with that.--BenJonson 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The more Bacon material that gets put up, the easier it is to make fun of the whole issue. Baconians are not having to endure the scholarly heat that Oxfordians are taking, so they are not refining their efforts and have not been forced to deepen their research and adhere to scholarly standards. Their work tends to be sloppy, not rigorous, and falls back on discredited notions such as cryptograms and radical re-dating of the sonnetts.

Right. Which is why leading ant-Stratfordians of the 19th century such as Walt Whitmanrefused to endorse the Baconian theory and instead held out for a more plausible candidate.

To be sure, plenty of sloppy Oxfordian efforts can be found, as well. But I am speaking, of course, of leading Oxfordian scholars such as Dr. Stritmatter, award-winning Canadian author Lynne Kositsky, and Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University, all of whose work has passed peer review and been published in scholarly journals.

Allowedfool.

I think if one took a poll of tenured Shakespeare experts in the English speaking world, one would discover that Oxford is viewed as just as much of a "quaint joke" as Bacon. john k 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on Fairness

• • I would really appreciate an answer from the anti-Oxfordians on my earlier question - can someone explain why the 3 sections that are pro-bacon (crytograms, strachey and geography ooops - I mean Raleigh's Execution), are allowed to stand whereas anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted? Since all of these certainly poke holes in the Stratford argument, I truly fail to see the difference. Is there a double standard here? I think this illustrates why I feel that there is an anti-oxford bias that permeates this article. Anyone? smatprt, Oct 12, 2006

Weasel

I moved the following from the to-do list. The question is the middle bit, which I've indented twice. AndyJones 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC):

• Citations are needed for many of the claimed orthodox perspectives, many of which use weasel words such as 'the orthodox perspective is...'.
  • Just out of curiosity, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the phrase "the orthodox perspective" constitutes a "weasel word." To me it is merely a factual acknowledgement that there are differing views on many issues pertaining to this topic. If one cannot use a simple descriptive term of that manner to distinguish between the views accepted by Stratfordians and those accepted by anti-Stratfordians or Oxfordians, how can one meaningfully discuss the differences? --BenJonson 17:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Quotable sources include Sam Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives and Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, Park Honan's Shakespeare: a Life, Irvin Leigh Matus's Shakespeare in Fact and David Kathman's website.

And for what it's worth, my answer is that WP:WEASEL answers this question without needing more comment here. AndyJones 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't follow your reasoning. More comment -- and therefore discussion -- is in fact required. I explained my reasons for originally using the term, and the policy you cite is not only not responsive to my reasoning, but also does not, on any ground that I can understand without further explanation, offer a justification for removing the word in question. You appear to have some particular reason for believing that the term "orthodox" is prejudicial. In my view it is merely descriptive. Please explain your reasoning.

• I think I see what you're driving at. However the objection to "the orthodox perspective is..." has nothing to do with the word orthodox being either inaccurate or prejudicial. The article frequently interchanges "orthodox" for "Stratfordian" and there's nothing wrong with that since all branches of the debate do the same. The reason it breaches WP:WEASEL is that it uses the term "orthodox" as a means to evade telling the reader specifically who, among all the orthodox scholars holds this view: thereby circumventing WP:V, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. The author of the to-do list (SingingBadger, I think) wouldn't have had a problem with "The orthodox perspective is so-and-so according to such-and-such-scholar <ref>his book page whatever</ref>". In other words, it's the lack of sourcing, not the word itself, that breaches WP:WEASEL. Does that work for you? AndyJones 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that such locutions should be avoided. But shall we agree to avoid them altogether, then? And are there to be any exceptions? Contributors to this and other Wikipedia entries on related subjects, themselves holding an orthodox perspective on authorship matters, have never been shy about publishing their own gratuitous summaries of the anti-Stratfordian or Oxfordian cases. See, for example the astounding display of public prejudice in the discussion section of the Earl of Oxford Wikipedia page by one Mr. John Kennedy, who refers to Oxfordians as members of a "cult" and lambasts the content of that entry as "bullshit." These comments are descriptive of the lack of impartiality that has pervaded these entries and which we are very far from overcoming at this point in time. "Weasel word" summaries of anti-Stratfordian positions written by orthodox contributors are typically left to stand, even when, from an informed perspective, they are preposterous. Rarely is citation provided. One often can't be provided, because everything that the writer knows about the subject s/he knows second or third hand, not from actually consulting the major anti-Stratfordian works. The result is a straw man that has more to do with the weak imagination and uninformed mind of the poster than it does to do with the position implicitly criticized by the "summary." So, in general, I am in complete agreement with your reasoning that attributing a particular view to a particular individual writer or scholar is greatly to be preferred. On the other hand, it seems to me that sometimes -- *when* is the problem -- it can be legitimate to speak, broadly, of orthodox and anti-Stratfordian perspectives. Otherwise there would be no debate. So, I think that is a matter that surely requires further consideration, in the interest of continuing to improve this entry. In any case, I for one would appreciate your diligence in insuring that this policy is intrepreted in a truly neutral fashion.--BenJonson 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy

I think this must be one of the toughest articles on Wikipedia to gain editing consensus. These are the difficulties as I see them:

(a) It is inevitable that, as things stand, this article has a Stratfordian bias because since only Stratfordian literature scholars can be suggested as referees to scholarly works then they have control over almost all of the publishing outlets.

This is only partly true. Oxfordians have published a number of articles, some even overtly Oxfordian, in accepted academic forums. Altough the prejudice you cite is real, it is steadily weakening. Moroever, the fact of the existence of scholarly prejudice is not a legitimate reason to inhibit the content quality of this site. The authorship question is unusual in the extent to which it involves various more or less informed constituencies. For instance, a significant and growing number of professional actors, Shakespeareans in particular, are anti-Stratfordians or Oxfordians. The Oxfordians include the late Sir John Gielgud, Leslie Howard (d. 1941) (at least arguably), Jeremy Irons, Michael York, and Sir Derek Jacobi, the later two both patrons of the Shakespeare Fellowship. While academicians may regard these facts as irrelevant, Wikipedia should not. These persons may not have PhD's, but only a nincompoop would suggest that they are not authorities on matters Shakespearean. Wikipedia can and should take notice of this trend even if PMLA cannot or will not.--BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This means few (if any) books on alternative authorship candidates ever get to be classed as a scholarly work. 

A catch-22, no? I will say: Looney's "Shakespeare" Identified is a scholarly work by any reasonable definition of the term. Have you read it? I recommend it, especially for academicians.

However, Wikipedia asks for citations to scholarly works. (The reality is that the machinery of academic institutions drives the Stratfordian viewpoint and it is my belief that literature scholars are anyway ill equipped to fully grasp such a complex issue as the authorship question. It is properly a historical-scientific investigation.)

Right. The authorship question is intrinsically interdisciplinary and few literary scholars have the historical knowledge to accurately assess the best arguments of the Oxfordians. Moreover, they have almost all been trained to scorn a subject they should be studying.--BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(b) Because of (a), Stratfordians can automatically declare their views as established fact and cite any number of scholarly sources to back that view, while Oxfordians, Baconians and Marlovians struggle to come up an equivalently regarded source. On this basis, since Wikipedia regards only the scholarly view as important, there is a good argument for no view other than the Stratfordian one being represented here - but then there would be no article! So I recommend that in order to have fair representation, some flexibilty be introduced that any given argument simply cites its factual sources rather than there being an additional demand that the origin of the argument is also cited.

Agreed entirely. Wikipedia should respect academic authority but should not be a slave to it. --BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(c) The Shakespeare authorship question is not a settled issue. Every authorship candidate including Shakspere has points that weigh against his case, and unlike, say, an article on logical positivism which can be put together without dispute, many of the issues in the Shakespeare authorship article are still debatable. To me, the article resembles a battlefield where the different factions thrash out these issues point for point without satisfactory agreement. There can never be a winner.

I'd like to underscore your statement that "many of the issues in the Shakespeare authorship article are still debatable." Understanding this should be a prerequisite for all editors.

As one example, let me cite the recent history of the text regarding Venus and Adonis. An earlier incarnation of this article presented the traditionalist view that this poem constituted a definitive proof of the Stratfordian argument. Roger Stritmatter, in an article published in the Fall 2004 issue of the University of Tennessee Law Review, has contested this view, in the process illustrating some of the shoddy reasoning that has propped up the orthodox view of the poem and illustrating a dynamic and, to many, persuasive "Oxfordian" alternative.

When a citation to his article was posted as evidence of the controversial nature of the point being argued, it was quickly removed, and the passage then edited to reflect a less dogmatic statement of the orthodox view. I believe the editor's intentions were sincere, but to my way of thinking the entire article has suffered through the watering down of precisely what should be debated. The editor's rationale for the removal of the reference to Stritmatter's work was that no summary of the argument was given. This is true, and if length were not a consideration then such a summary would be easy to supply. But given the constraints of the medium, and an article already over-long according to the grand poohbahs (I say it with affection) of Wiki, such a demand seems like merely an excuse to remove an offending reference. That the original formulation was then tweaked to remove the need for a clarifying alternative perspective is a credit to the integrity of the Wikipedia process and the good will of the more rational traditionalists here, but I fear that the entire result is to be deplored.

This entry can and should be controversial. This is a controversial subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. Our entry imo should not, paradoxically, aim so much as to inform or enlighten as to provoke and explore. Readers of the wiki entry should come away being able to understand why there is an authorship question, and what the bases for the various modes of antir-Stratfordianism have been or are becoming.--BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(d) One can insist on rigorous adherence to Wikipedia guidelines (and there has been insistence) but in that case these authorship articles will always be under attack from those who feel their candidate is being misrepresented. The only way to produce some stability is to allow the flexibilty of (b) in these authorship articles and be relaxed enough to allow all views to be discussed.

Experience shows, however, that these articles will always need policing. Puzzle Master 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But who will police the police? We are back at Plato's problem. --BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(a) The article has a "Stratfordian" bias because the vast majority of scholars are Statfordians. Your characteristic comment that "it is my belief that literature scholars are anyway ill equipped to fully grasp such a complex issue as the authorship question" is evidence of the preposterous narcissism you display.

Wow, buddy, can I please ask you that refrain from this sort of name calling? I, for one, happen to agree with this comment, and I absolutely and unconditionally deplore your silly attempt to counter a reasoned argument with such name-calling. --BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's why I decided to resist participation in debvates with you. But frankly, I can't stand reading any more of this stuff. 

Of course you can't.--BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(b) Any change of Wikipedia policy cannot be undertaken on this page.

What is it that the proverb says about patriotism? And who establishes Wikipedia policy. All human social reality is negotiated. --BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(c) Nothing is ever a settled issue. If you want to see other article that "resemble a battlefield" look at those on Jesus or Hitler.

Agreed. And that is precisely the point. But some things have been settled. For example, because of a remark I made in this forum some months past, the article no longer posts a fraudulent signature. That has been settled, I hope.--BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(d) All views shoiuld indeed be expressed. Paul B 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem debating an issue with you if you bring a reasoned argument to the forum. However, abusive comments such as "the preposterous narcissism you display" (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) appear to be the currency with which you conduct transactions here as the evidence shows [19]. Puzzle Master 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think (b) needs changing. The requirement is only for properly published sources. Charlton Ogburn is a valid source. Delia Bacon is a valid source. A. D Wraight is a valid source. The Henry Neville book is a valid source. I don't agree with the conclusions of those authors, but their ideas are worth including in the article because they submitted their work to publishers and went through an editing and checking process of some description. The only sources we try to keep out of Wikipedia are self-published books and self-published websites by people who have never been properly published in the field of Elizabethan literature. There are tons of valid anti-Stratfordian sources out there. Go and cite them. With page references please. Ditto Stratfordian sources. Finis. The Singing Badger 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The published writings of well-known Oxfordians and Baconians are, of course, valid sources on what Oxfordians and Baconians believe about Shakespearean authorship. They are not valid sources on Shakespeare, as they fall outside the scholarly mainstream. Their ideas should be presented fairly, but the fact that their ideas are far outside the mainstream, and generally ignored by mainstream scholars, should also be presented. Self-published writings should not be, and Paul is right that anyone who claims that "few literary scholars have the background to asses Oxfordian arguments" is making a completely outrageous argument. Is the contention here that self-taught quasi-scholars have more knowledge of the historical background than actual literary scholars? I actually know some English lit grad students, and they tend to know a great deal about the historical background of their period. john k 13:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Singing Badger, thanks for clarifying that the term in question is "properly published" and also that phrase such as "preposterous narcisism" are unwelcome. --BenJonson 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks BenJonson for trying to make some sense of all this hatred toward Oxfordians. It is clear that there are some editors who like to bully and attack as a line first defense, hoping to scare off (or disgust) editors with opposing views. It's shameful that they quickly build there own "consensus" without including everyone in the conversation.Smatprt 00:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's true. I HATE Oxfordians. They come over here; stealing our jobs; corrupting our children; raping and pillaging. If I had my way... AndyJones 12:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now, Andy - I did not single out out you so don't be paranoid. I think Barry and a few others that have vistied this talk page are full of anger and this anger bleeds over into their contributions (and deletions). And while "hate" may be a strong word, it is obvious from Barry's diatribes that his feelings are indeed that strong.Smatprt 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Andy- as I see you are quite intelligent, I was surprised that you completely chickened out on your answer to benJonson (And for what it's worth, my answer is that WP:WEASEL answers this question without needing more comment here. AndyJones 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)) . Whoever this was, please do not ever make a comment and sign it with my name. AndyJones 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry Andy - I meant to quote you. I did not sign your name, I copied it and your quote for yesterday, but forgot to sign in. I do think you should have answered benjonson's question, though.Smatprt 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus falls apart

Barry - I submit that you do not indeed have a consensus for your actions. In re-reading this talk page I find that Ben Jonson, Allowed Fool and myself all oppose your "consensus". I also find that Singing Badger was non-committal. Therefore your talk of "consensus" was premature and inaccurate.Smatprt 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I swore to stay away from this page for my sanity, but given the bizarre behaviour in the last few days I feel compelled to state my personal views:

• Barry's constant reversions are not helping. Enter the discussion, Barry and treat people with some respect.
• The section on hyphenation does belongs in the article because it is an argument commonly used by anti-Stratfordians of all colours (as far as I know). And the Sonnets image is utterly harmless.
• The large section on 1604 doesn't belong here because this argument is used only by Oxfordians. It thus belongs in Oxfordian theory. But you could add a sentence about it in the section that summarizes Oxford on this page.
• The section on Strachey does belong here because it is commonly cited as an argument by orthodox scholars when defending Shakespeare (due to its date), and and by Baconians (due to its connection with Bacon).
• BenJonson, could you please stop inserting your comments into the middle of things people wrote several days ago? It makes the pre-existing dialogue impossible to understand when you break it up like that.
• These are simply my personal opinion. They are not 'rules'. If you don't like them, figure something else out together.

OK, now I really am going. The Singing Badger 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? The anti-Stratfordian Mr smatprt does not care if the present editors agree with his alterations as he intends to put them in anyway. He cares not for consensus. As for you Badger I think you're unreliable and I'll tell you why. There's been recent talk here of consensus, agreeing on a stable version and reverting to it in case of change without consensus. Very nice! But who is going to do the reverting?! Not you, because you're always far more interested in the dramatic exit "no I really am going". So you're no use for defending it. Who then? Alabamaboy, who spoke the most vocally about it? Where was he when the 'stable' (pre-smatprt) version needed defending?! The regular editors now have a choice because Mr Dimwit here who's been attempting to defend the 'stable' version (i.e. defend the balance and quality of the article) now sees Badger telling him that his reversions are not helping. Well let's see if no reversions works better because I now happily let the regular Stratfordian editors here defend the balance of the article against anti-Stratfordianism. And your task will be more formidable because I now intend to join up with Mr smatprt and find even more potent arguments against Stratfordianism to put in the article. There you are Badger, your mission is accomplished, the one time adversaries are now friends! In fact ... we're now brothers in arms! Right then, cup of tea Mr smatprt?! Puzzle Master 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Badger - I have no problem cutting down the 1604 section, but I disagree that it is not an anti-Stratfordian argument. If the writer was dead by 1604, or 1609, then Stratford was not the writer. Oxford, Marlowe, Queen E's deaths notwithstanding, the issue is purely anti-Stratford just as much as questions of his class or learning.
  • Barry, Barry - cup of tea? Can I bring a taster? (kidding) Well, your constant reverts caused me to file a 3 revert rule complaint and now I am informing you. I suppose tea will be cancelled. But I'm glad to hear you will be going after Stratford now... Smatprt 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You've seriously filed a 3RR complaint??? Barry did indeed breach 3RR yesterday AND SO DID YOU. I hope you both get blocked for a couple of weeks. How can this edit warring possibly be good? AndyJones 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Andy - I regret my part in allowing myself to be dragged into an edit war and I apologize to all. However, not only did Barry threaten to delete my properly sourced additions "every night" before he went to bed, he also engaged assistants to revert all day on his behalf, one of which wrote "this is fun". He (they) simply went too far. I voluntarily gave myself a 48-hour block, but if we both get blocked for a longer period, I would live with it.Smatprt 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Baconian section

I have just read the changes to the Baconian section. They are uninformed and the person who made the changes has evidently made no effort to study the 14 Volumes of the Works of Bacon by James Spedding. Since none of the other regular editors seem interested in defending the quality of this article I'm thinking 'Why should I provide the correct information?' and I'm now inclined to let it descend into mediocrity. I feel sorry for the readers who now have to read the gratuitous and uneducated opinions of a rank amateur. Puzzle Master 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, well, I've started working my way through those, but I'm only up to volume 4 so I may not be up to the standard you have set for editing this page until around next Tuesday or Wednesday. In the meantime, can you possibly specify which changes you object to? As you know, the recent page history is an absolute mess and it is not easy for me to work this out from the context. Also, while I really do sympathise with your feelings about this, attacking the editor rather than the edit is contrary to the way we try to work here. We don't always live up to that standard, but I'm sure you'll agree that a critique based on "uninformed" "made no effort" "descend into mediocrity" "gratuitous and uneducated opinions" and so forth doesn't address any of the actual issues. AndyJones 11:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No Such Person, No Such Phone

I know I am beating an already long dead horse but. . .

Forgive me you smart people and delete if you will but. . .

I sincerely believe that. . .

There is no such person as William Shakespere the famous author. There were several famous people in a writer's guild named with the pen name of "Shakespere" with 1. William Shakspere, the actor from Stratford, 2.Christopher Marlowe, 3. Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, 4. William Stanley, the Earl of Derby, 5. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, and 6. Roger Manners, the Earl of Rutland.

Let me see if I get the story correct. About 40 years ago my elementary school teacher tells us that this poor english guy in the 1500's with nothing more than a quill pen, a bottle of ink and a few pieces of parchment penned with little or no effort the greatest literary masterpieces in all of history. Intuitively and with little or no evidence, that story has always bothered me. It would have to have taken many educated people and supporters with money, clout and social position to carry off that feat.

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/evidence.htm

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/guide.htm

http://home.att.net/~tleary/

http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/outline.html

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/hidncode.htm

http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/authorship/authorship_bacon_marlowe_stanely.htm

http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbivens/shakespeare/

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/bacon_francis.html

http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Philosophers/Bacon__Sir_Francis__1561_1626_/

http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/francis-bacon.htm

then there is this view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bacpenl.html

E Petrone 2:00, 18 Nov 2006 (EST)

Article Balance

Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. So, well done to those who have worked on this page. (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Others

Added William Nugent to the list of other suspects: the case is set out in the Green Cockatrice, published in 1978 - but I don't have the exact citation.--Shtove 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)