Talk:Palladis Tamia

Removal of Citations on Meres Page, Restoration Here

Tom, I noticed that you've been pretty active in editing this page.It looks in good shape, but I've resupplied the material that you deleted from the "Francis Meres" page about the role Palladis Tamia has played in the authorship question. I think you're right that it didn't belong on the Meres page -- but it does, I think, belong here. What's the point of talking about the book if can't acknowledge its pivotal role in the history of Shakespearean scholarship, which I note has been fully acknowledged by Shapiro in the reference which I cited. I'd appreciate not having to get into an edit war on this. The past is the past. Now is now. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The authorship question is not a notable characteristic or use of the work. It's a bit like inserting the Oxfordian theory in an article about the Geneva bible because of your interpretation of the marked passages in Oxford's Bible as an indication of his authorship of the plays, and so constitutes a WP:ONEWAY violation. In addition, none of the refs are suitable to source this page. the only WP:RS ref is not about Mere's work, and the other three are not WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion, Tom. I'm not sure why you would refer me to WP:ONEWAY when you've just eliminated two footnotes to professor Shapiro, for whom your high regard is very well documented. Perhaps it's because you concluded from your vantage point of omniscience that "in addition, none of the refs are suitable to source this page." Why is that? I'm similarly puzzled by your need to bring my University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation into this dissertation. Talk about "not suitable!" It's a complete non-sequitur that inappropriately personalizes the discussion. No one's talking about that here, except you. Shall we stick to the issue at stake? You say that the role that this document has played in the authorship question is "is not a notable characteristic or use of the work." Your reversion is a good instance of a violation of IDONTLIKEIT. Literally dozens of references to the role that this document has played in the authorship question may be found all over the published literature of the question. I could easily have found a dozen more within a few minutes had I tried. I'm sorry, Tom, but as any good lawyer would tell you, the door's already been opened here. Even your favored version of the page lists the Shakespeare plays. Attempting to deny that Meres is important because of what he says about Shakespeare is a little like trying to deny that there's oxygen in air. Open your copy of Ogburn (1984) and start reading at the beginning. I respectfully suggest that it is time for you to stand down on this sort of wholesale deletion of the work of other editors. If you want to help build wikipedia, help to build it. Otherwise, I think you might want to find another hobby. Its a new day, Tom. The old stonewalling is not going to work.----BenJonson (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you already reverted again, Tom. I'm going to request that you stop doing that and discuss first. You haven't answered my questions. You just went ahead and did what you wanted. I'm only guessing, but I'm guessing that that doesn't look good.--BenJonson (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My esteem for Jim Shapiro has absolutely nothing to with it, just as his book has absolutely nothing to do with Palladis Tamia. The SAQ is a fringe theory. While it is perfectly acceptable to discuss whatever implications PT may have on the SAQ in an article about the SAQ in its various permutations, it violates WP:ONEWAY to bring it gratuitously into this article. To quote you from above, "Literally dozens of references to the role that this document has played in the authorship question may be found all over the published literature of the question", but not in the published literature about Mere's work.

You also might want to read the WP:BRD page and the WP:BRDWRONG page.

My mention of the Geneva Bible was in way of analogy. It's not all about you, but next time I reach for a comparison I will not mention any of your work. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And yes it is a new day. I suggest you read up on it: The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, BenJonson has supplied the very RS references you have asked for in previous ONEWAY arguments. The addition is cited to Shapiro, and you and I both know could be cited to dozens of mainstream sources. The Ogburn cite is also RS, being published by an independent reliable third-party publisher. The only question is the Brief Chronicles cite, which I am sure you can challenge in the appropriate places. Now that BF has been out a while, and several of its articles have been reprinted in unquestionable RS, it will be interesting to see how "notable" it has become (or is becoming). In any case, instead of deleting RS material, which you argue so strongly against in the articles you regularly edit, why not ever offer alternate wording, or some sort of compromise? Isn't that what the community really wants to see? Working together, compromise, etc.? I just don't understand your 'draw a line in the sand', 'no compromise', 'if you're not with us you're against us' position. I don't think anyone believes that its the wiki-way of dealing with contentious articles. Smatprt (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you still don't understand the principle of WP:ONEWAY, and apparently you didn't learn anything from your forced vacation. I would think you have enough on your plate right now instead of returning to edit-warring mode. I suggest you review this principle set forth in the Arbitration decision, as well as this one instead of continually pushing your POV in articles that have nothing to do with the SAQ. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The tone here is getting very heated...and use of the words "edit-warring" do not help. How about a compromise of some sort along the lines Smatprt suggests ?? As a "third party" who was never involved in any of the past issues which led to the Arbitration situation, I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Rogala (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you just now remove another editor's comments? Or were those yours? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) In this regard, I would like to suggest additional language concerning the significance of Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury by Francis Meres, in the history of the Elizabethan era:

Palladis Tamia's profound historical and literary significance is that it introduced to the world the playwright whom some consider the greatest ever, William Shakespeare. Wit's Treasury issued the first plenary announcement that Shakespeare, already renowned in England for Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, was author of the previously anonymous or unknown popular works: Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labor's Lost, Love's Labor's Won (now lost), A Midsummer Night's Dream,, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, pts 1-2, King John, Titus Andronicus, and Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps more remarkably Meres listed these works in the exact order that they appear in the First Folio, the compendium of Shakespeare's plays, suggesting that the order is chronologically accurate, occurring identically twenty five years apart, if not dated individually. The chronology of the plays has been a source of conjecture in modern times.

Palladis Tamia also contains a puzzle, a frequent amusement included in literary almanacs in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, which compares sixteen ancient playwrights to their (unevenly numbered) seventeen leading counterparts in then modern England. The Earl of Oxford ranked first, "the best for comedy among us bee [1] Edward Earl of Oxford". [i.e., 17th Earl of Oxford] Shakespeare was listed ninth. As the second list had one extra, the puzzle consisted in determining which of the seventeen moderns was simply a fictitious name for one of the other sixteen. Kenneth A. Hieatt stated that "...beneath a simple literal surface profound symbolic communication of an integrated continuity should take place covertly" in Renaissance literary contexts. This appears to be the case with the puzzle, because the Earl of Oxford's initials, EO, is the phonetic sound of 'I' in Italian,IO, which in turn looks like 10, the sum of Oxford [1] and Shakespeare [9]. It was a pastime for literary minds to ponder and best each other by, while leaving the average reader to believe the listing uncritically.

For modern historical purposes, it appears to indicate Lord Oxford and Shakespeare were one and the same playwright. This hypothesis would have to be corroborated by further research. Henry Peacham, Jr.'s Minerva Brittanna (1612) also employed the little English pronoun 'I' on its title page tribute which said in Latin, "By the mind I will be seen. Some commentators have suggested that the 'I' refers to the phonetic form of the Earl of Oxford's initials, EO. The attached Latin pun on the page is confirmatory, saying in anagramic Latin, 'Thy Name is Vere'. "I'/IO/EO appears throughout the puzzle-book, as repetitions of the mental teaser and a reminder of the person honored in the book as the modern Minerva, or Mind.

The utility of almanacs and compendia, such as Pallidis Tamia and Minerva Brittana, cannot be underestimated as cultural media of covert information in the early modern English state, as indicated by Hieatt. (Short Time's Endless Monument, Columbia:" Columbia University Press, 1960, p. 6)------END

If no one objects, I think this would be an interesting and necessary addition to the present article, which at present fails to state the context and importance of the subject volume. Also I think that the significance of this book is its relationship and use as the source by which we understand a crucial element of the Shakespeare issue, the first appearance of Shakespeare as a playwright, along with his plays. The other features are equally significantly historically. I can provide footnoting throughout. If this information cannot be included in a form agreeable to all, I would suggest removing the present text and rewriting it. How does the consensus stand on this matter? Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)