Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets

According to my dick, Shakespeare was gay and had wild butt sex. Why is the "sonnets" part of the title uncapitalized? C H, Random Middle School Student (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CAPS says "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun." I don't think this is a proper noun, although if it's usually used as one capitalization could well be appropriate. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

of "periods" and "full stops" ...

NOTE: I have reverted the change from "periods" to "full stops." Surely "full stop" is familiar in British English (and yes, Shakespeare is British yada yada yada), however ... given:

1. the word "periods" is from the book referenced
2. "full stop" will totally confuse Americans (and many Canadians)
3. its use clearly does not imply a true "full stop" in the course of reading if it appears after every word

THEREFORE: I have restored the word "periods." Comments? Questions? Proofreader77 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism" in the lede; bisexuality in dedication

According to the lede, the sonnets "deal with such themes as...atheism". If the lede is meant to summarize what follows, this shouldn't be here as it is the only mention.

Lower down, regarding "Mr. W. H.": "The reality, identity and age of this person remain a mystery and have caused a great deal of speculation as to Shakespeare's implicit bisexuality" Apart from the wording ("reality of this person") the reason why it "cause[s] a great deal of speculation as to Shakespeare's implicit bisexuality" isn't made clear to this reader. Is it Southampton, perhaps?. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted:thanks User:Smatprt. I'm now looking for sources for doubting the "reality" of the dedicatee, but everything I've found so far suggests the opposite: It would have been against Thorpe's nature to waste the opportunity of flattering someone who could do him advantage. Any objections if this were removed as well?--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While (personally) I agree with you on this point as well, I suppose the "reality" reference refers to this line in the article: "In his 2002 Oxford Shakespeare edition of the sonnets, Colin Burrow argues that the dedication is deliberately mysterious and ambiguous, possibly standing for "Who He", a conceit also used in a contemporary pamphlet. He suggests that it may have been created by Thorpe simply to encourage speculation and discussion (and hence, sales of the text)." Also, I do think the "bisexuality" aspect has been commented on by more than one researcher, although it does make some scholars uneasy. I removed it due to a lack of reference, but would not oppose a section on the topic if accompanied by a reliable source. I certainly don't agree with its former placement, as most of the "speculation" is about the identity of the dedicatee and the circumstances surrounding the publication itself.Smatprt (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I won't make any changes in the lede without some meaningful and well-sourced addition in the body. Not soon, so if anyone else wants to take this up, please do! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The possible fictional character the dedicatee has been commented upon, so that should probably stay (though the theory seems far-fetched to me too). The bisexuality theory is derived from the content of the sonnets, not the dedication. Including that in the description of the wording of the dedication would, I'd suggest, just confuse matters. I guess the atheism claim derives from the oft-noted fact that sonnets imply that the only real immortality is to be had from children and literature, and the absence of pious sentiment, but that's a big extrapolation. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Though this may surprise everyone, after looking at the article again (thanks Moonraker), it was apparent that the authorship stuff in the lede was too long and not reflected in the article itself. I believe I fixed this by moving most of it to its own section, and leaving a single line reference in the lede. Smatprt (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"...sacred images to Freemasons and Rosicrucians"

This recent addition identifies "Pillars of Solomon's Temple,...sacred images to Freemasons and Rosicrucians" in the dedication. Although it is referenced to a web page maintained by the Rosicrucian Order, is this too far outside mainstream scholarly discussion to be included? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think so. If there were more references that showed this theory actually being discussed by other scholars, that would be helpful. But it appears to rely exclusively on a single source. Smatprt (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thank you, Moonraker, for highlighting this. My first thought is that you are right, although my second thought is, hmmm, my first thoughts are not always right. For example there is a copy of a PhD thesis a friend sent me (she is not a Freemason:) which became a book from Ashgate publishing which gave me different perspective on such things ... i.e, again, thanks... I'll be looking into this. But surely other[s] have more solid footing already. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like loopylalaland theory to me, and what do we know about this 'electronic journal'? Proofreader77, could you be less eliptical about this book and its relevance. A title might not go amis. Paul B (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse parabolic response ^^ ... My comment meant only that I used to dismiss all such things out of hand ... but a very smart person chose to devote a great deal of time to such things (which included getting special access to archives) and a resulting PhD thesis. While that particular (Keatsian) document will not answer the Shakespearean question here, I thought she might have some insight on the question (or whom to ask) ... and so I've sent an email to current university email (but it is Thanksgiving). Proofreader77 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah Keats, well I guess you mean this book. The historical difference is that Fremasonry certainly existed as an organised movement with established social networks and beliefs in Keats' day. We know it was significant in Mozart's career for example (Mozart and Freemasonry). The problem is that we have no good evidence of this for Shakespeare's day, only the self-crerated myth of ancient continuity that Masons and Rosicrucians asserted for themselves, which is barely more respectable than the Priory of Sion. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Paul B. - As I said, "But surely other[s] have more solid footing already." Such are your well-planted feet. (re Priory of Sion - Do you mean Audrey Tautou will never walk on water?!?! ^^) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Authorship Questions" Get Top Billing?

How disappointing that "authorship question" take virtual top billing in an article about some of world literature's most glorious poetry.

It must be noted that the "hyphen-equals-pseudonym" claim of the anti-Stratfordians should not be presented in this piece as though it is fact.

It has been eviscerated, e.g. at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html (..."there is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real people were also sometimes hyphenated.) HedgeFundBob (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point: there seems no reason why the "authorship question" shouldn't be moved down the page—be WP:BOLD. Is there a single citation that puts the "hyphen-equals-pseudonym" issue into context, thereby guarding against any suggestion of original thinking? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is actually nonsensical. The phrase "authorship proponents" makes no sense (as opposed to those who argue that the sonnets are natural phenomena perhaps?). The word "notes" implies that this is undisputed fact rather than a theory (or rather made up fantasy as HFB notes). Paul B (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)