Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question

Coleridge

Confirmation for the following has been asked for a year. So I have transferred the text here.

In 1811 Samuel Taylor Coleridge expressed his amazement that "works of such character should have proceeded from a man whose life was like that attributed to Shakespeare."

There's no mention of this, as far s I have checked, in R. A. Foakes (ed.) Coleridge on Shakespeare The Text of the Lectures 1811-12, Routledge, 2005 ISBN 978-0-415-35286-4 Payne Collier whose notes these are, later distinguished himself as a forger. It's well worth following up in any case.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edwards

I've moved this sentence here because I don't really know what is intended by it. "Following discussions made much earlier, notably by Charlotte Stopes...". I don't have instant access to the full Stopes article, so I don't know what she says. As far as I can tell, the identification of Adon with Shakespeare was made in the very first modern edition of Edwards, edited by WE Buckley in 1882. Duncan-Smith's article treats the identification as uncontroversial. So Stopes is not the originator of the argument, unless she is making a link to the poet in purple robes. Buckley, like other "normal" scholars, assumes that the purple robed one is another poet, evidently of high social status, commented on after Shakespeare. He discusses the obscure imagery in great detail in his footnotes. He suggests various persons, including Oxford (a suggestion he attributes to Edward Dowden).

This discussion seems to have been co-opted by the anti-Strats who try to argue that the comment about Adon's skills at "def[t]ly masking", usually taken to refer to WS's acting, are really saying that he is a mask for another writer and are therefore somehow a lead-in to the comments on the purple robed one, implying that WS is a "mask" for him. Did Stopes first make this suggestion (maybe as a joke), or discuss it in response to an anti-Strat? Or did she just identify WS with Adon? Paul B (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks to Tom, I've seen the Stopes article. She suggests that Ferdinando Stanley might be the purple-robed poet. In other respects what she adds to the debate is not linked to this issue as far as I can see. The earliest anti-Strat use of the passage seems to be Charles Wisner Barrell in 1948 here, though it's possible there are other earlier uses of the passage. So we have the following timeline

1882, Buckley publishes his impressively detailed scholarly edition of Edwards. He says the stanza about Adon refers to Shakespeare. The following stanzas refer to an unnamed poet of high social status. He suggest several names, among them de Vere, though his preferred option is Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst. Other "Stratfordian" scholars all seem to take the same view: Adon = Shakespeare; poet in "purple robes" = unknown aristo. Stopes adds the name of Ferdinando Stanley.

1948, Barrell comes across the passage in an anthology of verse references to Shakespeare. He seems to be unaware of Stopes, or even of Buckley's pre-existing suggestion that Oxford might be the man. He creates an elaborate interpretation of the stazas, which is that Edwards is saying that Shakespeare has been masked at the insistence of Queen Liz but is really a high aristo in the court.

Later Oxfordians latch onto this and repeat this argument with variations: Diana Price, Roger Strit etc. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Spot on, Paul. I'm glad Tom flicked over a copy of Stopes paper to yourself as well. My phone connection broke down 4 days ago and I was muzzled (sighs of relief all round) and couldn't reply. I indicated Stopes as one of the earliest. My thinking is that if this page is to survive, it had better do a more extensive job than the survey we already have in the SAQ article. As you know, virtually every jot of argument raised over the last decade by Brief Chroniclers appears to rehash stuff floating about since the 1880s-1920s. Showing the distant genealogy of the usual talking points would be one way to safeguard the page's dubious subsistence, though in that case, we would have an RS problem. Stopes is RS, as are many other earlier critics like Andrew Lang and J.M.Robertson. Still mulling what the best course might be.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rutland and the Russians

That supporters of the Rutland claim tend to be from Russia might be worth noting. Artaxerxes (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i don't think there is any specific Russian connection. It's true that it was most common on continental Europe, not so much in English speaking conunries. But I know of no specific Russian interest beyond the fact that Ilya Gililov, the most recent Rutlandite is Russian, which means the theory is now popularly-known there. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Shakespeare Unmasked Petr Sergeevich Porokhovshchikov, Savoy Book Publishers, New York, 1940; 304 pages.
• "For Whom the Bell Tolled: A New Dating for Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle," and the Identification of Its Protagonists" Ilya M. Gililov: Russian Essays on Shakespeare and His Contemporaries Parfenov, A. T. (Editor), Price, Joseph G. (Editor), Associated University Press, 1997; 209 pages. ISBN 978-0874136197
• The Shakespeare Game: The Mystery of the Great Phoenix Ilya Gililov, Algora Publishing, 2003; 500 pages. ISBN 978-0875861814

. . is all I've found on it (except for a related YouTube, also out of Russia). Artaxerxes (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Gililov (and actually the essay in the Parfenov book does not overtly promote Rutlandite views; I've read it). You list one other Russian. The most famous Rutlandite was Karl Bleibtreu, and others were from Western Europe. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Celestin Demblon, a Belgian, was the best known Rutlandite after Bleibtreu. There was also Wilhelm Turszinsky, a German critic. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Raleigh

U.S. author Henry Pemberton, Jr. began his research in 1905 (according to the preface), and his work—Shakspere and Sir Walter Raleigh, considered "the definitive claim"—was published in 1914 His "inductive study of the works", the way he framed his investigation, might have given Looney ideas. Artaxerxes (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We cannot say it is "considered the definitive claim", just because some ancient, marginal source says so. In any case, it is intended to mean the definitive statement of the claims for Raliegh. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bardolatry

Pemberton says in his preface:

"In many quarters worship of William Shakspere has amounted almost to idolatry; it is in fact a religion. To question his authorship, therefore, may seem to many but little short of sacrilege. I have thought it desirable, accordingly, to present in the first part of this book an account of the true personality of the man, as shown by the recorded facts of his life."

Artaxerxes (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And your point is what? Paul B (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The article now states in its lead-off sentence under its section titled Debate in the 19th Century:"Uneasiness about the difference between Shakespeare's godlike reputation and the humdrum facts of his biography, earlier expressed in allegorical or satirical works, began to emerge in the 19th century." Pemberton's quote, and his reaction/action to/based upon this tendency, would seem to support this contention directly. Perhaps including it would strengthen the argument/article.Artaxerxes (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pemberton is reliable for summarising his own views, but not for a general statement of fact as he is not WP:RS. He's rather obscure, so there is also the question of weight since he's not a very notable anti-strat. If this type of 'blasphemy' argument is made by others it could be included as an example of a typical argument. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is an unholy mess

FatGuy7 has thrown in every tiny detail and speculation and generally messed up the references and organization without any talk page discussion. I dunno whether to revert back or try to work in the information in a structured manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus mentioned by either reference, and one reference is being seriously misquoted.

I am copying my response from the other talk page here since we are talking about the same information in the same complaint. But after reading the original references, I have found that one of them (Wadsworth) is being seriously misquoted in this article. Nowhere does Wadsworth say there is a scholarly consensus that these doubts first surfaced in the 19 century. In reality, he states something very different (see below). The second reference quoted, Bate, also does not mention a scholarly consensus. This phrase has apparently been made up by a previous editor.

(copied from other talk page) Hi. I am responding to the request on the subject line. This 59 year old book was already being used as a reference on these authorship articles, so is presumably acceptable for this article already, well before I began to edit it. I have checked the other references and nowhere do they say that there is a scholarly consensus about when these various doubts first started. Each reference is merely noting the opinion of the author making it. I also see on the reference list a number of 50-year-old reference books, and one that is at least 100 years old. I have never heard that the age of a reference discredits it's veracity.

But no matter, Wikipedia seems to require that these various opinions, printed on university presses, should be noted, without giving greater importance to one over another. Churchill, and his collaborator, Hussey, were well-respected in their fields. I also find that another reference book already represented in this article, by Frank Wadsworth, says on page 8 that "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." Wadsworth then goes on to write that 1687 was the year of this first clearly expressed doubt. He then lists 1728 and 1759 and 1769 as additional years where doubts were clearly expressed. So that is two acceptable reference books that are in opposition to the current listed date of the 19th century. Just because some later writers did not research this question completely, does not negate the work of previous scholars who were more thorough. Does that answer your question? Will you now put back the information that was deleted? FatGuySeven (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubts about whether Shakespeare wrote a particular play and doubts about whether Shakespeare was in fact the primary author of the works attributed to him are two different things, and it is dishonest to pretend they are the same. I don't have time right now to comb through all of your edits, but let me say that this is a general encyclopedia, it is not an exhaustive blow-by-blow account of every occurrence of when someone made a joke or wondered if there was another hand in a Shakespeare play, nor is it a duplication of every point made in any particular book. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The opinions of those who think there are hints of the SAQ earlier than the 19th century are covered just after the scholarly consensus is expressed, and when a scholar strings together a series of 'ifs' to express a contingent result, the proper term for that is speculation (and in fact that particular speculation is not part of the history of the SAQ). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you calling me dishonest? Unbelievable. But I suppose that is your right, free-speech and all. But it is you who are misquoting. Wadsworth doesn't say "hints". He says "the first clearly expressed doubts about the authorship." He doesn't say "if", as you can see from the quote. This is in his book about the Shakespeare authorship question. The same book the editors of this page have used for other citations. Churchill, in his book on the history of the authorship controversy, also lists several dates in the 17th and 18th centuries, as early doubts. He only uses "if" when discussing whether pictorial evidence should be included in the debate. On page 30 of his book, he says "the first literary, as distinct from pictorial, evidence belongs to the 18th century"

You seem to be picking and choosing according to your own personal belief, instead of reporting these various academic opinions, and have not answered my concern that the references cited make no mention of any "scholarly consensus", instead these writers are just stating their own opinions.

Where are you quoting the term "scholarly consensus" from? You still haven't answered that. All of these dates were listed by both these authors in their histories of the authorship question. Why have you decided they are not part of the history? I don't understand. Maybe I'm unaware of how things work here. Are you the deciding editor on this page?

Please tell me this – is there any Wikipedia rule that discusses how "scholarly consensus" should be cited? That might help.FatGuySeven (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The person misquoting Wadsworth is you. You are selectively quiting him to make him say what you want him to say.

There are two types of Shakespeare authorship "questions". The first type is sorting out what Shakespeare wrote from what his collaborators wrote. This is known as Shakespeare attribution studies, and is a valid and ongoing scholarly field. This is what Wadsworth refers to in your quotation from The Poacher from Stratford:

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 second type of the Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that Shakespeare was not the author of the plays attributed to him and that some other writer was the actual author. To claim that Wadsworth is saying that Ravenscroft's doubts about the authorshi[ of Titus Andronicus is the same as the SAQ by selectively quoting him is either disingenuous or indicates that you don't understand the topic.

Wadsworth does go on to outline the other allusions to Shakespeare authorship doubt, but he classifies these as allegorical or as joking references, such as the dialog from the play High Life Below Stairs (1759).

Wadsworth also points out that these are the stuff that anti-Stratfordians like to cite "as furnishing undeniable proof that the century had begun to see through the Shakespeare imposture" (15-16). But he goes on to name the "two men who were the first to argue without allegorical coloring tht William Shakespeare was not the real author of the plays. Their theory though not made public until the beginning of the nineteenth century [my emphasis], has its genesis in the eighteenth (16)."

He of course names James Wilmot and James Corton Cowell as the two men, based on the notes of the "Ipswitch Philosophical Society" of 1805, in which Cowell lectures about Wilmot's conviction that Bacon was the real Shakespeare. This has, of course, been proved to be a forgery, so we cannot follow Wadsworth on this. The first explicit assertion that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare was by Joseph C. Hart (who earlier had heard a lecture by Delia Bacon, according to a late 19th-century newspaper story). Tom Reedy (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What can be amply documented is that the position FM7 is reinserting is the standard (Mark Anderson, Richard Whalen, etc.etc.) fringe point of view. The idea that there is 'fraught disagreement', furthermore, cannot apply to formal scholarship, which treats the subject with insouciant dismissal. It can only apply to the huge dissent over which of 85 candidates is the real Shakespeare. FM7 should review WP:fringe which is all over his contributions here. Even, if we ignore the justification that Wadsworth and Churchill were working over a half century ago, Wadsworth and Churchill as cited are cited for what is now a fringe view in scholarship, discarded because surmounted.Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In his Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (2010), James Shapiro writes, "There's surprising consensus on the part of both skeptics and defenders of Shakespeare's authorship about when the controversy first took root. Whether you get your facts from the Dictionary of National Biography or Wikipedia, the earliest documented claim dates back to 1785, when James Wilmot, an Oxford-trained scholar who lived a few miles outside of Stratford-upon-Avon .... gradually came to the conclusion that someone else, most likely Sir Francis Bacon, had written the plays." (p. 3)

Of course Shapiro goes on to give the evidence that he Wilmot/Cowell papers are a forgery, and it is now accepted that they were a forgery from the early 20th century. But what Shapiro says on that same page is relevant to the dispute here: "But both Wilmot and Cowell were ahead of their time, for close to a half-century passed before the controversy resurfaced in any serious or sustained way." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate phrasing. An antedated forgery from the 1920s can hardly anticipate the future in 1850s, or the ostensible controversy it falsely imputes to the past "resurface".Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Shapiro's rhetorical device reflected the current consensus when his book was published, which he overturns a few pages on. His later debunking makes it clear that there were no serious or sustained authorship challenges until the mid-1800s. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.

You (Tom Reedy, above wall of text) are ignoring the second set of references I keep using - to Churchill. But first - Wadsworth. No where does he mention your claim of attribution studies or collaborations as you have described them. You seem to be making that up. I repeat: that's not in Wadsworth. And it's not in Churchill, who also begins the origins and first of doubts in the 17th or 18th centuries.

AND - you're constant bullying and put downs grow tiresome. AND - I saw that you removed some of the reference pages. AND - you changed the wording slightly to accommodate your references. You are clearly playing games with me. FatGuySeven (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is never helpful to make accusations about other editors on an article talk page. Instead, please engage with prior discussion. I assume that "wall of text" refers to the comment at 06:25, 24 June 2014 just above—that comment is not particularly lengthy, and it contains cogent arguments that call for a response. Are you saying that Wadsworth does not use the word "attribution" and so any mention of "spurious" must be expressing doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the works attributed to him? Does the text quoted from The Poacher from Stratford above confirm your point? Why? Please stick to one point at a time because no meaningful dialog can occur when discussing multiple issues simultaneously. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations of personal misconduct do not establish that such behavior has occurred. Here's another handy page for you and the other six to study. It appears that you're going to need them sooner or later: Dispute resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So I guess this was just the standard Wiki welcome?:

"FatGuy7 has thrown in every tiny detail and speculation and generally messed up the references and organization without any talk page discussion. I dunno whether to revert back or try to work in the information in a structured manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)"

I believe this was right before my formatting was called "shitty"?FatGuySeven (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq - what I meant was the neither Wadsworth or Churchill label any of the doubters they list in terms of collaborations or shared attributions. They are discussing the first authorship doubters, and the first to accuse Shakespeare of fronting for someone else. That, I believe, is the authorship question, not attribution studies. Does that answer your question? FatGuySeven (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable for you to point to the unpleasantness as your response to the above, but can we please now drop that line—I'm hoping everyone will agree that comments about other editors are unhelpful and off-topic here. It would be better if the comments about this article were in the previous section, and they really should engage with what was already said. I can read the "what I meant was..." just above, but how does that relate to the text quoted from The Poacher from Stratford in the previous section? Are you saying that the quoted text does not concern attribution, but instead verifies that 1687 was when Shakespeare was first accused of fronting for the real author? If so, how do you interpret "this I am apt to believe, because 'tis the most incorrect and indigested piece in all his Works"? Given the context (Ravenscroft's preface in his adaption of a play), the quoted text should be interpreted as an opinion that Shakespeare had similarly adapted the play because it was of poor quality compared with "all his Works". That is the opposite of doubting Shakespeare's authorship. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Did I put that on your talkpage? No, I put it on the article's talkpage, about 45 minutes after I made my first edit on the article.

And you have yet to address my explanation of why you are misusing Wadsworth, instead accusing me of 'bullying', 'putdowns', and 'playing with you'. Your edits muddled up the sense and organization of the lead and introduced niggling detail of SAQ history on a page whose purpose is to list the various candidates that have been nominated. If you are going to edit on Wikipedia you will have to read the links you were given about the purpose, policies, and methods of editing we use. You might find some editor who has the spare time to show you the ropes, but for the most part you will have to gain your knowledge by reading the links that were given to you on your talk page and those I have given to you instead of learning by trial and error on a page that been through arbitration. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq: the Wadsworth quote reproduced above was out of context. Here is the lead into that quote which makes Wadsworth's meaning clear: he is clearly talking about the first recorded authorship doubt (in his opinion) and the first accusation that someone else's work was published using Shakespeare's name. What you and I think he meant or what Ravenscraft meant is immaterial, it's what Wadsworth thought that is important here. His book is subtitled "a partial account of the controversy with the authorship of Shakespeare's plays". It's clear he believed this was the first "clearly expressed doubts about the authorship."those are his words not mine. We can only rely on what his words were. Right?"I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage, that it was not originally is, but brought by a private author to be acted…" This was clearly not an accusation that the play was cowritten or a collaborative piece. This is being described in terms of the authorship question, as Wadsworth plainly says in his introduction to this particular example. But regardless of Ravenscraft, there are multiple other examples, which I have quoted below and copied onto the other talk page discussion as well.

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 comvment 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: (Churchill, Shakespeare and his Betters: A History and a Criticism of the attempts which have been made to prove that Shakespeare's Works were Written by Others)

"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…"

Churchill goes on to list several more instances, in 1738, 1768, & 1777, where additional doubts about Shakespeare's authorship, or accusations of him being a thief or front man, were mentioned. I can quote extensively from them if you like. In other words, it's a matter of opinion as to when these first outs occurred and whether they were serious, explicit, or just jokes. We can't decide which are which. No one can. We can only report with the references tell us. That's what I am trying to do and it's this material that keeps being deleted and replaced with an opinion being presented as a fact.

We should just be honest with the readers and tell them that dating authorship claims is a matter of opinion and ranges from the 17th to the 18th century. Right now the opening two lines of this article is incorrect and does reflect the rules as stated by the various links I have been provided.FatGuySeven (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What was that you said at the outset of this section, about Tom Reedy's 'wall of text' (a phrasing suggesting some long term intimacy with this area of wikipedia?). This is not a matter of honesty with readers, but comprehension of the history of scholarship, which, as has been observed, means that superceded views are not to be cited as current state of the art theories. On this Churchill and Wadsworth are dated. To place outdated opinions alongside later scholarly views, and conclude from the comparison that the discrepancy in judgement means opinions differ, is fatuous jejune. One is supposed to understand this in week two of any 4 year course on critical historiography.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

FAtGuySeven, please show us how the lede does not address the alleged early doubts.

"Claims that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him were first explicitly made in the 19th century.[2] To that date, there is no evidence that his authorship was ever questioned.[3] This conclusion is not accepted, however, by proponents of an alternative author, who discern veiled allusions in contemporary documents they construe as evidence that the works attributed to him were written by someone else,[4] and that certain early 18th century satirical and allegorical tracts contain similar hints.[5]"

The lede is supposed to summarise the article, not go into eye-glazing detail. No one has deleted your additions in the early doubts section, though (as I wrote a week+ ago) I tried to organize it into a coherent text. And you don't seem to understand the difference between disintegrationism such as Ravenscroft posited and the Shakespeare authorship question--saying that a person did not write a certain work is not to say that that person was not a writer or that he was acting as a front for another writer. You also might try to figure out where Wadsworth is speaking tongue-in-cheek. You can usually tell because it's the black part of the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:44, 28 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)

Have youy any citations from current scholars that state that 'it's a matter of opinion when the AQ started'?

You are still ignoring the point raised several times. Answer it. If a scholarly view several decades ago is no longer in the current literature, and indeed, is explicitly contradicted by subsequent literature and nowhere cited in the current literature, is it valid to assume that both have interpretative parity, that nothing is superceded?Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

[1]. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We are supposed to keep talking, so... Please direct me to the policy that supports your questions. Just because Shapiro or others didn't research the early doubts, or write about them, does not negate the work of scholars who did. FatGuySeven (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• (a) do you have citations from current scholars saying that Wadsworth and Churchill were wrong?.'?FatGuySeven (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014

• (b)Have you any citations from current scholars that state that 'it's a matter of opinion when the AQ started'?Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014

• (c)We should just be honest with the readers and tell them that dating authorship claims is a matter of opinion and ranges from the 17th to the 18th century.

• (d) do you have citations that state that 'dating the authorship claims is a matter of opinion and ranges from the 17th to the 18th century'?

(b and c ) are rhetorical form of irony, that, if read properly, answers your question, since its premise is, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'. To construe, you deduce from Wadsworth's claim and Churchill's claim, both superceded, that (WP:OR) 'dating the authorship claims is a matter of opinion', and you do this by ignoring the difference between scholarship in 1959 and scholarship in 2014.

• (c)Please direct me to the policy that supports your questions. FatGuySeven 16:19, 30 June 2014

• (d)Please direct me to the policy that supports your questions.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• (e)'Just because Shapiro or others didn't research the early doubts.'

• (f) But he, and others (Schoenbaum etc.,) did. Your phrasing is a banal example of petitio principi whose premise is demonstrably false, and not, aas stated, factual: (i)the premise is that there were early doubts (undemonstrated by any known scholarshiup), the inference from (i) is that (ii) scholars post-1960 did not undertake research into Wadsowrth and Churchill's claims. As Reedy showed with Wilcox, and as Schoenbaum's book illustrates, they did, and found them wanting. You are wasting editors' time by such disattentiveness.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"The generally excellent Wadsworth book lacks documentation, and has faults of emphasis .... While agreeably modest and a cheerful read, Chruchill’s book suffers from the limitations of amateurism. His summaries (e.g. of Abel Lefranc’s views) are not always to be trusted, and he displays a disconcerting indifference to factual precision." S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives (1991), 2nd. ed., n. p. 385-6. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

> Some scholars like Wadsworth and Churchill accepted the evidrnce I gave cited.

This is a joke, right? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't help it, I gotta point this out

Ya what I gotta point out is, who tries to tell the history of the Shakespearean authorship question without even listing Charlton Ogburn in the footnotes? Does that mean the editors responsible for this cowardly screed in its present state haven't read Ogburn, or is it just the case that they are committed to communicating the idea that he's inconsequential? Yes, I'm fully aware that Ogburn is mentioned a few times in the text of the article -- I'm referring here to the footnotes, which are used to tell your reader where you got your information. Leaving Ogburn out of them may be a convenient form of redlining for orthodox apologists, but it's a bit like trying to write an article about the Church without mentioning St. Boniface.--76.100.170.62 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironical comment of the year. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No kidding, User Tom Reedy.--76.100.170.62 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogburn refs added. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogburn does not count as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards: WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Hence the fact that references to him are cited to reliable sources. Admittedly, this article is not wholly consistent in citing only RS. Gililov, Farey and other anti-strats are cited, but that is not to use their arguments, just to record the existence and location of their works. BTW, this article is about the history of the SAQ, a topic for which Ogburn is not a source as such, or at best he is a primary one. His book is part of the history, not a contribution to the study of the history. It's also a rather small part of the history - largely a rehash of arguments from within one sub-tradition in the overall history of the SAQ. I agree that his importance is comparable to that of St. Boniface to an article on the Church. Perhaps you should pop over the article on the Catholic Church and tell them that they have somehow managed to write the whole thing without once mentioning St. Boniface. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Shakespeare authorship question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002115317/http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/webster.htm to http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/webster.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)