Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Authorship doubts in the 17th and 18th centuries

As to the matter at hand, it is you who decided to add the word "explicit" is that correct? Why do you get to choose when to start the history, when according to Wadsworth, Churchill, and other Shakespeare authorities, it started much earlier? Your line about proponents is also incorrect, since it was Wadsworth and Churchill who wrote about these early doubts and they can hardly be called proponents.

The lead is supposed to reflect the article and this lead does not. That's what I'm saying. As both Churchill and Wadsworth say, it's impossible to determine when someone claimed the first doubt, and it's a matter of opinion as to whether it started in the 17th 18th or 19th century. That's what references say, that's what the article should say, and that's what the lead should say. I have offered at least three different lead openings to try to fix this. You have deleted all of them and offered nothing instead. Is that called working in good faith?FatGuySeven (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wadsworth, page 8:

"The beginnings of the controversy are shrouded in time, and one speaks with small insurance in signing to a single Man the responsibility for first suggesting that William Shakespeare was an imposter. Although it has become fashionable for those opposed to the Orthodox tradition to argue that the secret of the plays have been hinted at continuously from the late 16th century on, there is no overt evidence that Shakespeare's contemporary saw anything unusual in the attribution of the place to Stratford actor and manager. One must, in fact, move on to the end of the 17th century, to a time when, ironically, many spurious plays were finding their way into the Shakespeare canon, to encounter the first clearly expressed doubts about the authorship."

Page 9 and 10: "a rather different kind of comment upon the composition of the plays appeared in 1728… describing Shakespeare as a man who "was no scholar, no grammarian, no historian, in all probability could not write English,"

Page 10: "in 1759 other minor dramatist, one James Townley, brought up the question of Shakespearean authorship again... Although the conscious have pointed out that this repartee may simply represent the birth of an old and honorable joke, other authorities have maintained that Townley's farce marks the genesis of the movement to separate the man of Stratford from the plays.

Page 11: "if James Townley was the first to ask – seriously or just – who wrote Shakespeare, Dr. Herbert Lawrence was the first component doubts about the authorship of the plays with a personal attack upon the traditional author. In 1769..."

Page 13: "Lawrence, whose booklet was long ignored, is now held by those amount the learned who cannot take Townley seriously to have been the first to see through the Shakespearean imposture."

Churchill, page 28:

"whether the origins go back to the 17th century or merely to the 18th is, admittedly, a matter of opinion. It depends whether we give any credit at all to evidence that lies outside the reach of literary criticism."

Page 30: "the first literary, as distinct from pictorial, evidence belongs to the 18th century".... The passage cannot however be taken as accidental;... There must have been, and the mid-18th century, a certain amount of discussion as to the authenticity of the traditional authorship of Shakespeare…"

Churchhill goes on to list several more instances, and 1738, 1768, & 1777, where additional doubts about Shakespeare's authorship, or accusations of him being a thief or front man, were mentioned.

In other words, it's a matter of opinion as to when these first doubts occurred and whether they were serious, explicit, or just jokes. We cant decide which are which. No one can. We can only report what the references tell us. That's what I am trying to do and it's this material that keeps being deleted from the opening sentences and being replaced with an opinion that is being stated like it's a fact.FatGuySeven (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not post the same material to more than one place. This discussion started (I think) at Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question#Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus., and there is now the same text here and there. One of them should be replaced with a link to the other. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And please don't start a new section every time you decide to post. You need to be specific as to what you're talking about. You write, "Your line about proponents is also incorrect, since it was Wadsworth and Churchill who wrote about these early doubts and they can hardly be called proponents." I have no clue what you're talking about. The line in this article states "Proponents argue that the documented life of William Shakespeare lacks the education, aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court which they say is apparent in the works." Neither Wadsworth nor Churchill argue that.

Again, this is not a history article, and the phrase "though supporters of the theory often argue that coded assertions of alternative authorship exist in texts dating back to Shakespeare's lifetime" is sufficient for the context of a list of Shakespeare authorship candidates. And again, Wadsworth's "the first clearly expressed doubts about the authorship" relates to the first attempted disintegration of the canon, not to questioning William Shakespeare of Stratford as an author, as is clear from the context I supplied and which you have ignored.

One must, in fact, move on to the end of the seventeenth century, to a time when, ironically, many spurious plays were finding their way into the Shakespeare canon, to encounter the first clearly expressed doubts about the authorship. In 1687 a minor dramatist, Edward Ravenscroft, adapted Titus Andronicus for performance. In the address "To the Reader" of the printed edition, Ravenscroft, thinking it "a greater theft to Rob the dead of their praise then the Living of their Money" confessed [9] that there is "a Play in Mr. Shakespears Volume under the name of Titus Andronicus, from whence I drew part of this." Ravenscroft went on to reveal that "I have been told by some anciently conversant with the Stage, that it was not Originally his, but brought by a private Author to be Acted, and he only gave some Master-touches to one or two of the Principal Parts or Characters; this I am apt to believe, because 'tis the most incorrect and indigested piece in all his Works; It seems rather a heap of Rubbish then a Structure."

Ravenscroft, it should be noted, banished Titus from the canon as the result of Bardolatry which refused to admit that Shakespeare could ever have written badly. His motives make him the first of the so-called Disintegrators, those unorthodox Shakespeareans who, exploiting the uncertainties of Elizabethan theatrical history, would like to reduce the number of canonical plays to the few measuring up to the high standards of the greates tragedies, histories, and comedies....None of the Disintegrators has ever doubted that Shakespeare was the author of the superior works, of course. (pp. 8-9)

The current scholarly opinion is that the SAQ began in the mid-19th century, for which I have supplied an up-to-date reference from Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells. I would be interested in your explanation as to why a 55-year-old reference controverts modern scholarship.

I am finished repeating myself. I hope that you are also. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll post this here as well, since it answers your questions and points out the problem with the opening statements of this article, as well. I will add that you have only labeled Ravenscroft as a disinigrater. What about the other half a dozen or more doubters listed by Churchill and Wadsworth. Also - your new reference is just more opinion. It's not a fact and that is what you are implying. It's misleading and easily fixable. Why do you refuse to suggest a rewrite, as I have?FatGuySeven (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"To answer your main question above, sentence 1 is an opinion not a fact. You are still basically saying that there is a scholarly consensus. Defining "explicit" is also a matter of opinion. I've cited two references saying a)it's a matter of opinion when the AQ started; and b) the dates range from 17th-18th century on when claims started. Both reference books are explicitly histories of the authorship question, and include some disinigraters and as early doubters due to the types of claims they made. One foes not exclude the other. Sentence two doesn't reflect the section on early doubts recognized by Shakespearean and literary scholars. Churchill and Wadsworth are very clear as to when they are citing their own opinions and research, or when they are repeating the claim of a doubter. sentence 3 is misleading as both orthodox scholars AND doubters have cited additional examples of supposed contemporary references. You are lumping them together. FatGuySeven (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Sentence 2, is just ridiculous of course. The first section on possible early doubts completely negates it. Some scholars like Wadsworth and Churchill accepted the evidrnce I gave cited. I suppose Shapiro does not. Why not just delete it for now and try and get the first sentences right. This opening is my only major complaint here.FatGuySeven (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I'm also requesting - do you have citations from current scholars saying that Wadsworth and Churchill were wrong? Have modern scholars specifically discounted their work, their research or their opinions? Isn't that what you need to discount them? Have a sampling of modern scholars actually discounted Ravenscroft, as well as each of the 18th century doubters? We know about the forgery, but what of the others?FatGuySeven (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)" FatGuySeven (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that you've opened your case at WP:DRN let's just follow instructions and put this aside until it is resolved. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we are still supposed to try and use the talk pages. So I renew my questions.FatGuySeven (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxford in Bacon's group

FG7, I've reverted your edit because the source (not an academic reference, BTW, as you characterise it in your complaint) is incorrect. If I have an outdated source that says Francis Bacon is the most popular SAQ candidate, can I put that in since I have a source for it? No. Can I say that Wilmot was the first Baconian since Wadsworth says so? No.

Here's exactly what Delia Bacon says about De Vere (speaking of Sir Walter Ralegh):

He became at once the centre of that little circle of highborn wits and poets, the elder wits and poets of the Elizabethan age, that were then in their meridian there. Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, Edward Earl of Oxford, and some others, are included in the contemporary list of this courtly company, whose doings are somewhat mysteriously adverted to by a critic, who refers to the condition of 'the Art of Poesy' at that time. (p. lv)

And that's all she says about Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

I can find all kinds of sources that say that Obama was born in Kenya. Can I put it in the Barack Obama article? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You are just playing games. Churchill and Wadsworth are reliable sources. I doubt you Kenyan reference is. Churchill and Wadsworth are standard texts with university imprints. I doubt your Kenyan reference is. FatGuySeven (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one playing games, though I like to use apt analogies. Again I note that you fail to address the main point, which is what D. Bacon actually wrote. Reliable sources or no, by your reasoning we should be able to include Wilmot as the first Baconian, instead of mentioning him and then informing the reader that it is a forgery. The alleged early doubts are given space in the history article to the extent they are reflected in the reliable sources (and probably even more so), and they are mentioned in the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)