Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Recent edits

Some recent edits have attempted to insert text into the lead of this article to state that Oxford was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate merchant. A comment was just made on this page, and I have moved it to here, and will respond below. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What we now have on this page is full-blown censorship. First, the people who run the page semi-protect it to keep out anonymous comments. Then they block people who make comments with real user names. You can't get a word in here at all about the true background of Edward de Vere. When you present evidence that Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare", it's deleted. When you bring to light the considerable controversy about the question, that is deleted. When you mention prominent researchers and public figures who support de Vere's claim, that is deleted. It's utterly disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.8.227 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia normally allows anyone to edit any article. Imagine how articles would look if everyone on the Internet came along and added stuff they "knew". That's why there has to be a proper reference to support assertions. See WP:V and WP:IRS. There are many great websites with lots of interesting information on a wide range of topics, but lots of those sites push unorthodox views: did man land on the moon? did a plane crash into the Pentagon? who killed JFK? Wikipedia does not attempt to "balance" an article by giving each opposing view "equal time". Instead, the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE are applied. In the case of whether Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works, editors are following the normal procedures: the views of mainstream academics are given priority, and reliable sources must verify each assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That man did not land on the moon and that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon are fringe views. But that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare is not a "fringe view."

It is fringe in exactly the same sense for exactly the same reasons. It's a conspiracy theory which is not discussed in academia. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory. John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia are not conspiracy theorists. Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, and Derek Jacobi are not conspiracy theorists. Academics are supposed to be open-minded, but on this issue, they are not. If most will not even discuss the issue, how can it be properly examined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.42 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

General review

As promised in November, I've come back to give a thorough review of the page. In general, there is far too much original quotation in extenso which only redoubles on what the narrative says. Most of the quotations belong to the genre of writings to secure courtly patronage, and are characterised by hyperbole and flattery, and are never regarded by historians as testaments to facts other than the dynamics of bidding for favour or influence or patronage. I have removed the garbled (too much detail, much of its lacking the requested sourcing) and post it here.

The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford had entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave. Having sued his livery, Oxford was entitled to yearly revenues from his lands and the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of approximately £2200, although he was not entitled to the income from the estates comprising his mother's jointure until after her death in 1568 nor to the income from certain estates set aside to pay his father's debts until 1583.

Perhaps a section dedicated to his finances would be better. In any case, too much detail is to be avoided. Thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dedications

Since he had over 20 book dedications, clearly one cannot punctuate a brief narrative of his life by continual interruptions, month by month or year by year, noting these dedications. I have collected some of them here. Perhaps, if needed, they can be compiled in chronological order in a late section.

In early 1572 Oxford wrote a Latin epistle to Bartholomew Clerke’s De Curiali, a translation into Latin of Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano, and in the same year Thomas Twyne dedicated his Breviary of Britain to Oxford, noting that 'your Honour taketh singular delight' in 'books of geography, histories and other good learning.In 1573 Oxford wrote a commendatory letter and verses for his friend Thomas Bedingfield's Cardanus’ Comfort, a translation from the Latin of De Consolatione by the Italian mathematician and physician Girolamo Cardano.In 1574 Oxford's surgeon, George Baker, dedicated to him a work containing two translations, The Composition or Making of . . . Oleum Magistrale, and The Third Book of Galen.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting

I think one should compare this, esp. the later sections, to most Elizabethan biographies. There is no distinction between important and trivial incident, seminal moments and minor facts, no narrative value, and no attempt to group anything thematically. Indeed chronological sequence has trumped thematic grouping, so his amorous and theatrical interests interleave his failed speculations, and there is far too much useless citation of boring primary sources. It goes well down to about 1570 and thereafter is unreadably tedious in its rapid juxtaposition of excessive detail and sketchy marginalia . ?Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

Wendy hardacre (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

to added to 'foreign travel' section

According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily.<ref> Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12.