Talk:Shakespeare's handwriting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Shakespeare (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Signature in Florio[edit]

What grounds are given for the Shakespeare signature in Florio's Montaigne being a forgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mainly the fact that the handwriting is completely different from other known signatures. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


This entire article is basically nonsense. The supposed "signatures" on the mortgage deed are merely the result of the legal clerks writing Shakespeare's name on the tabs of the document to identify his seal; look at the two "signatures." They are not remotely similar, although they were supposed to have been made at the same time. They were obviously written by two different people: the law clerk for the buyer and the clerk for the seller. The so-called signature on the deposition in the Mountjoy case isn't a signature, either. Witnesses did not sign their depositions in Elizabethan times; the person who took down Shakespeare's testimony wrote his name at the bottom of the page to identify who gave the testimony. Shakespeare did not sign the document! Of the three alleged signatures on the will, only the one on the last page is a real signature, and that is a partial one. It does not take a handwriting expert to see that the words "By me, William" are written in a competely different hand than "Shakespeare." There are not six surviving signatures of Shakespeare; there's half a signature. (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)daver852

Utter rubbish. Read some books. And read WP:RS too. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do the same. And buy some glasses - if you think these "signatures" were written by the same hand, you must be blind. 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)daver852

Then the experts are blind too. The kind of vacuous arrogance you display is typical of ignorance. Paul B (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

James Shapiro video regarding Tabard Inn "carving"[edit]

In a youtube video published in September, 2015, James Shapiro says, "Shakespeare was found to have cut or carved his name unto the panelling of the Tabard Inn...," along with Burbage, Jonson, and others. The video shows a Shakespeare signature scrolling across the screen as if it is a representation of the signature found at the tavern. A look online indicates that it is a manuscript dated 1643 that says something to this effect, and that the tavern itself burned down in 1676. Neither fact is mentioned by Shapiro in the video:

A Folger Library interview with the scholar who found the manuscript (author unknown) seems to make a few unquestioning inferences:

Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Both the Youtube video and the Folger-dot-edu webpage appear to be promotional or some form of advertising. When Shapiro says the name-carving was “found” he is apparently referring to the person who found the carving and who then wrote the entry dated “November 1643” in the manuscript. In both links, Shapiro’s and Folger’s, the story is described as an anecdote. The handwriting shown as a graphic in the Youtube video doesn’t appear to represent something carved in wood, and it doesn’t appear to be intended to resemble wood carving. The video devotes only 30 seconds to the story, but there is more description of this manuscript in an article, “The Bard at the Tabard”, written by Martha Carlin and published in The Times Literary Supplement 24 September 2014. The inn is the same one mentioned in The Canterbury Tales. This anecdote is interesting (I think so), and the 1643 manuscript would seem to have value to scholars. Name carving is not exactly “handwriting”, which is what this WP article is about, but it’s close. DagTruffle (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)