Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

William Shakespear died May 3 1616

Should we put in parenthesis the day of his death under new calendar, new calendar is in use since circa 1750 then all days b4 are legally old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeagentkils (talk • contribs)

We just repeat the way his death date is conventionally given in books. In his William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life, Samuel Schoenbaum explains the procedure as follows: "In this period the year (which in England was still reckoned according to the Julian Calendar) began officially on Lady Day, 25 March, although popular—as distinguished from legal and govenmental—practice varied. Not until the Calendar Act of 1752 was Gregorian reform instituted: eleven days were dropped from that year to correct the discrepancy that had developed between the two calendars, and 1 January became the official first day of the year. In citing dates I have followed the standard practice of revising the year (where appropriate), but not tampering with day or month. Thus in John Manningham's diary entry for a performance of Twelfth Night in the Middle Temple, the date appears as 2 February 1601, but in my narrative I give it as 2 February 1602". qp10qp (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia portrait of Shakespeare

Please discuss which portrait should be used on wikipedia as the definitive image of Shakespeare. I put it that the first folio engraving regardless of personal opinions should be used. It is the most used and the most associated portrait of Shakespeare. It is even directly published of the time just after his death as Shakespeare. It would be more appropriate than portraits that are connected only by circumstantial facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.187.32 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is hard to justify the current use of the Chandos portrait as there is not consensus that this is actually Shakespeare. The First Folio Droueshot engraving is likely to be more reliable (if artistically poor) because its use in the Folio was overseen by his frends John Heminges and Henry Condell and would therefore presumably not have been used if it did not reasonably resemble him.

Peteinterpol (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia needs to be "definitive" here (that would imply some conservatism that really doesn't apply to online media). I really dislike the first folio Droueshot engraving - it is now such a cliche, and frankly doesn't look much like a person (any person). I'll suggest the Cobbe portrait, but everybody should look at Portraits of Shakespeare before chiming in. Smallbones (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New portrait of Shakespeare found

I'm not an expert on editing wikipedia and I don't want to screw this article up, but I just read something of interest about a new portrait of Shakespeare that has been found, possibly refuting some ideas about him: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/09/william.shakespeare.portrait/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Someone who is more experienced may wish to edit this in, thanks! RevenantPrime (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See thread #Possible_new_painting.3F about this painting. Dcoetzee 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The main image to use of Shakespeare would be the first folio. After that his bust, then the Cobbe and then Chandos. Why the Chandos has been used for so long on wikipedia is unknown. The evidence of the Cobbe portrait being of Shakespeare is indeed overwhelming. Purchase history should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanmilesashe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not an expert at Wiki.. but I think that the picture should definitely be changed. The evidence that the new Cobbe portrait is of Shakespeare is overwhelming. Certainly more valid than the evidence for the Chandos portrait. possible image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/3/9/1236638626755/Newly-Identified-portrait-001.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.150.203 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is still some remaining controversy whether the Cobbe portrait was indeed drawn from life there is little doubt that the person depicted is indeed Shakespeare.

Note that the caption under the image still says it's the Chandos portrait! Someone with editing rights please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.2.197 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is plenty of doubt about the sitter being Shakespeare. See the Cobbe portrait article for more info on this. Smatprt (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Shakespeare with the Romantics?

Is this correct, in the article where it says S.'s reputation rose with the romantics and was modest prior to that. Ben Jonson, a contemporary, is famous for having said, "not of an age, but for all time," and Samuel Johnson, the 18th century critic, calls Shakespeare the greatest ever in multiple places in his work on Shakespeare. Also, I think I could be confusing it with a poem by Keats, but I thought Milton had said that Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare were the three greats of all-time . . . but again, this may have been Keats, and could have even been Homer, Virgil and Dante . . . can someone look more into this? I'm sure Shakespeare's reputation as the greatest ever had been firmly established long before the Romantic movement.Donselma (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the reputation section, it says exactly what you say here. Wrad (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all that firmly. He was recognized, but it was not until the 19th century, under impetus of German scholars, that the aura of 'genius' that we know today surrounded him. Yes, he had been appreciated - but not popularly. Productions, especially of comedies, were scarce during the Restoration era. He was by no means unknown, but most studies on Shakespeare criticism tend to find a real difference being made by those early 19th century critics. And Hazlitt, of course. User:Bosola —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

New references style complete

I've completed the conversion of the references here. Please take a look! I corrected occasional typos/errors along the way. Where there were quotations being cited, I sometimes replaced the secondary source with the one where the quotation originally appeared (for example, citing the First Folio where Jonson's "for all time" appeared instead of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations). The non-trivial issues I ran into are outlined below.

• The first note (about his date of birth under the Gregorian calendar) is referenced to some random person's calendar conversion tool on his/her Geocities page. There's probably a better source out there.
• Page numbers are needed for:
  • McMichael & Glenn 1962
  • Pequigney 1985
  • Snyder, Susan, "Introduction" in Shakespeare 2007
  • Hoeniger, F. D. "Introduction" in Shakespeare 1963
• I was unsure what the two references and "cited by" meant for the following citation: "Dobson, Michael (1992). The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660–1769. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198183232. Cited by Grady, Shakespeare Criticism, 270.4."

The exercise gave me a chance to reread this excellent article. Kudos to all who contributed!

P.S.: qp, after this, I promise I'll return to William Barley. :) BuddingJournalist 22:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The calendar and Pequigney refs go way back, before the FAC. The calendar citation could be replaced with one to Schoenbaum, Compact, xv. I was never able to find a copy of the Pequigney, though it is easy enough to get the gist of his argument checking around the net. It seems to me, anyway, that the ref must have been given as a general one, for which one doesn't need a page number. The same is true for the introductions, which are findable without their page ranges; the referenced points are presumably argued throughout them (I remember that Hoeniger is the seminal authority on Pericles authorship issues). For the Grady, it means that the reference is to Grady, which I read, but the details of the work he cites are given for convenience. His is a sort of ventriloquistic account of various scholarly analyses. I think the McMichael & Glenn is unsatisfactory without a page number, but that section is highly controversial, so one tends to leave it be for fear of setting off dominoes. Another one that I was unable to find a copy of.

Terrific work, by the way. I kept meaning to do something like that but I never could quite numb myself to attempt it. qp10qp (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll replace the calendar one with Schoenbaum. I figured the lack of page numbers may have meant that the reference was to general arguments made throughout the work. BuddingJournalist 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the U library catalog and it's got the McMichael & Glenn and the Pequigney. I'll look the page numbers up and get them back to you. Great job.Tom Reedy (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, as far as the McMichael & Glenn citation, the book was published in 1962 and on page v of the introduction it states that the authorship controversy was more than a century old, so I suppose that's where the cite came from. I haven't had time to look at the other book yet. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me know whenever you all feel comfortable about moving this to the actual article page. BuddingJournalist 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! qp10qp (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice there's now a long list of citations to Shakespeare, William; which, while undoubtedly correct, is significantly confusing. For the various critical editions of the plays (and Sonnets), can we not cite them to the de facto author (the citation is to the critical apparatus or notes, not the text of the play) instead? --Xover (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was working off of the references at this version. The new citation style employs citation templates so that you can click on, say, Shakespeare 2005, to go to the relevant full bibliographic entry. These templates use the main author as the anchor for these links; that's why you see Shakespeare 2005 instead of Wells 2005. However, where the critical commentary is cited, this is noted (for example, "Wells, Stanley, "Introduction" in Shakespeare 2005, xx." or "Rowe, John, "Introduction" in Shakespeare 2006, 3, 21."). I may have missed some in my translation to this new style though, so if you spot any mistakes please let me know (or amend the citation as needed). Is that what you were concerned about? BuddingJournalist 10:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no; there is a long list of works listed under Shakespeare, William—which is formally correct—but where the reason we're citing that work isn't the text of Shakespeare's play, but rather the critical apparatus that surrounds it. While the letter of formality suggests, say, Stephen Orgel should be listed as Editor, in this particular case I think it would be much more clear to simply omit Shakespeare and list the relevant editor(s) as the author in the template. This applies (at a quick glance) to everything listed in References as "Shakespeare, William"; and certainly to the major critical editions (Arden, Oxford, New Penguin, Norton, etc.). --Xover (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In the previous version, the references were all over the place with these works; some listed the editors first, others Shakespeare first, and still others just omitted Shakespeare. I actually did play around with various tricks to try to get the citation format to use the editor's name as the anchor, but eventually just settled on the current version. I can certainly convert the Shakespeare, William citations to use editor-only format (thinking about it, this certainly makes sense for the anthologies; for edited works such as Pericles, I'm a bit more inclined to include Shakespeare as author somewhere in the citation). Also, there are some instances where what is actually being cited consists of Shakespeare's words (for example, his Sonnet 18); should those be kept as is? BuddingJournalist 11:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. In the previous version, where the citations were a bit all over the place, this problem wasn't apparent. It's now that they're all nicely gathered, consistently formatted, and alphabetized, that it just kinda screams at you. For citations to the actual works we might adopt the same practice that we've used on the play articles: standardize on one specific edition and give the cite as "The Tempest, 3.1.123." and then explain in prose at the top of the references what version of the play that refers to (and the act/scene/line conventions). For example, Romeo and Juliet uses Arden Second Series and The Tempest uses Arden Third Series for all their play references. That way we neatly sidestep the issue of whether to give Shakespeare as the author (you might look at how it's given at the top of the references in The Tempest, in particular). --Xover (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if adopting Xover's suggestion here, which I personally support, that we pick ONE decent COMPLETE WORKS and cite all direct references to the works, to it. I'd favour Wells/Taylor's Oxford (second edition), but any of the usual suspects would be fine. Alternatively, if what we're citing is an introduction, or similar, we should list it by the editor's name, not Shakespeare's. AndyJones (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We did choose that edition for the FAC, and it is used throughout, except for one sonnet cite which goes to an online source for reader convenience. The issue is really that various editors are used as sources, mainly for their intros but sometimes for other notes, and so other editions such as Penguin or Arden have to be dragged into the matter. One of the advantages of the previous system of noting over the new Harvnb form (which nonetheless is cleaner and better) was that a single click took the article reader to a clear citation that showed if it was to an introduction, or whatever. Now two clicks are needed. Probably it is best to cite to editors in the short Harvnbs, and then the second click will take the reader to the full citation, where, if these sources are listed by editor, it will be clear whether the cites are to introductions, notes, etc. qp10qp (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion done (phew!). BuddingJournalist 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your Sisyphean labours (you must be a masochist): it's highly appreciated. The only ones that look a bit odd to me are in the form: Hoeniger, F. D. (1963), "Introduction", in Shakespeare, William; Hoeniger, F. D., Pericles, London: Arden Shakespeare, ISBN 0174435886l . Reads a bit confusingly. As if Hoeniger helped Shakespeare (and co.) write Pericles. The template's fault, of course, not yours. qp10qp (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know :(. I asked on the talk page of the template a while back about what could be done in cases like this; on further reflection, perhaps I can insert an (ed.) after the first name (Hoeniger, F. D. (ed.),) as a hack. BuddingJournalist 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare festivals

Should there be some kind of mention or link to the rather large number of Shakespeare festivals? Maybe a like to "List of Shakespeare Festivals"? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A site with many Shakespeare links added to external links?

{{editsemiprotected}} www.TheEnglishCollection.com (make a "quick search" for shakespeare: lists 220 radio shows and lectures on Shakespeare) (88.84.169.108 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the link. I am not adding the link in the article because the site itself doesn't host anything about Shakespeare — its only a customized search engine. However people watching this page and more knowledgeable about the subject might want to reconsider the addition of this link in case its beneficial. Cheers!--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Study

Is the study of shakespears is relerant in our society today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.204.2 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to talk to your teacher if you have any questions related to your homework. :-) --Xover (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk to her about your spelling too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Age at death (moved from .../to do)

[moved from …/to do by Xover (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)]

We should add "(aged 52)" next to his date of death for the sake of convenience.

Sultan Agnew (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the lack of a precise birthdate, there's some doubt about that. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On his monument, it states that he died in his 53rd year, so there is no doubt he was 52 years old.Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is unknown what date he was born, we can't state his age. He was either 51 (almost 52), or 52. We only state the age where it is certain. Whoever designed the monument probably guessed. 23 April is often stated as his birth anniversary, which I guess is because it is St George's Day, rather than there being any evidence of him actually having been born that day. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that the designer of the monument guessed anything, since it was almost certainly commissioned by his family, so we can be fairly confident that they knew when his birthday was. So he died on or after his birthday. That still does not tell us the exact day. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Almost certainly commissioned by his family?" I'm wondering what the proof for that statement is? Seriously. Can you guide me to the contemporary evidence of that? Smatprt (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is no surviving documentation, as you know. It's the consensus view of scholars, who take the view that normal practices of the time applied, not fantastical conspiracies of a kind unknown to history. Do you not agree that the Great German Philosopher is wrong when he states that "whoever designed the monumrnt probably guessed"? It rather suggests that Frederick the Second knows nothing about the date and location of the monument. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"fantastical conspiracies of a kind unknown to history" - except this kind of conspiracy is known to history. According to the DNB, in reference to the Thomas Hayward affair, on July 11, Hayward was interrogated before the Privy Council, where the Queen "argued that Hayward was pretending to be the author in order to shield 'some more mischievous' person, and that he should be racked so that he might disclose the truth". So here we have the queen readily jumping to the conclusion that Hayward had put his name to this work (The first part of the life and raigne of King Henrie IIII), "pretending to be the author" in order to shield another living author. This would seem to indicate her knowledge of not so fantastical practice. Smatprt (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

or her willingness to use fantastical speculation to her political ends, and to indulge in torture and baseless witch hunts against those she imagined to be involved with her enemies, and those who dared to deny her conspiracy theories. - Nunh-huh 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't sure, and you seemed so sure of yourself in your post. I thought maybe you knew something I hadn't heard of on the subject. Yes, intricate conspiracies in Elizabethan England certainly never happened! And I believe everything all government officials say! I BELIEVE! I BELIEVE! Repeat the mantra! I follow the official line! I am one of the willing herd. I will follow my leader right off the cliff! Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is the concept you are looking for. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense? Ok, let's see. Would the concept of Common Sense have anyone really believe that an American president, known throughout his political career as the ultimate patriot, would actually sell weapons to a hostile nation and then use the cash to fund terrorists? Common Sense would say "Absolutely not!". Unfortunately, we know this as an actual conspiracy involving Ronald Reagan. You may have heard of it. It was called Iran-Contra. Similarly, would the concept of Common Sense have us believe that the CIA would actually assist in the assassination of a democratically elected leader? Common Sense would say no, but it happened - and more than once: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. Now do you really believe that every conspiracy fails the common sense test? Or that every conspiracy has actually been discovered??Smatprt (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So, because Ronald Reagan funded the contras, Shakespeare didn't write his own plays?

Yeah, that makes LOADS of sense. Carlo (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How childish. But, as RR once said, "Well... there you go again!". Do you even READ the conversation before you jump in? Paul and I were discussing conspiracies and I cited several that didn't pass his common sense test. But I suspect you KNOW that. You obviously have nothing to contribute here but red herrings. How unfortunato! CU. Smatprt (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)although we do not know his birth date it is said he died on his birthday which would mean his birthday was on 23 of april although the year remains unknown. Now if this theory were true we still would not know the year but he is believed to have baptised in the same year(1564).Callum1st2 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)And feel Free to check out my talk on Shakespeare at my page Callum1st2 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a proposal at the Hamnet Shakespeare AfD to merge that article into this one in some way. Please comment at the AfD. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Where is the AfD?Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Closed as keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamnet_Shakespeare BuddingJournalist 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ongoing discussion at WT:GAN#Problematic review. Wrad (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think it should be merged into this article. This is the basic Shakespeare encyclopedia entry, and I think it should stay that way. It's impossible to put everything related to Shakespeare in one article, and trying to do so would make it difficult for people to find specific topics.Tom Reedy (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just Have to ask how come we know his baptismal date but not his Birth date?

Because baptism records are kept, but not the actual birth date, which may have been up to three or more days earlier. qp10qp (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

TV/film adaptations

The following sentence (which I've removed) was recently added to the lead on the basis that the list Shakespeare on screen isn't linked to in the article: "They have also received more TV and movie adaptations than the works of any other author.<ref>Young, Mark (ed.). ''The Guinness Book of Records 1999'', Bantam Books, 358; Voigts-Virchow, Eckartm (2004), ''Janespotting and Beyond: British Heritage Retrovisions Since the Mid-1990s'', Gunter Narr Verlag, 92.</ref>" I removed it because there is currently no discussion on TV/film adaptions of his plays in the article, and a lead should be a summary of the article; perhaps the topic may merit a short sentence, but probably not in the lead. I was unsure where I might insert such a sentence though. Although there's little reason to doubt the sentence is true, the use of Voigts-Virchow as a source for this claim is not the most authoritative; page 92 only mentions that the actress Fiona Shaw stated on a British television program(me) that Shakespeare is the most filmed author ever. BuddingJournalist 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for deleting it. Nothing should be added to the article without discussion. I have no doubt that someday someone will add a section on souvenir Shakespeare coffee cups. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Really?  Sandstein  07:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Souvenir Shakespeare coffee cups

If I discuss it here can I add it on the article if a few people agree with me, right? Firio (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Please don't. For the sake of modern civilisation, don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Name spelling variation - why not mentioned?

Why does this article give no mention of the fact that there is some dispute/debate/discussion over the 'correct' spelling of the name "Shakespe(a)re"? If you look in any copy of the Oxford English Dictionary it's quite firmly given as "Shakespere". A quick google finds whole articles (http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html) devoted to the subject.

78.149.153.70 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He himself wasn't consistent in the spelling of his own name in his surviving signatures. This was perfectly normal for the period. It's not uncommon for manuscripts to spell one word three different ways in the same sentence. Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no correct spelling of the name, but the article uses the one most commonly used today. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The only verified signature of Christopher Marlowe says "Christopher Marley."--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)