Wikipedia

Talk:William Shakespeare

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smatprt (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 6 June 2007 (go brits!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Smatprt in topic British vs. American Spelling
Learn more about this page
Good articleWilliam Shakespeare has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 24, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL Template:PastACID


Shakespeare the Enlightened Rosicrucian

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've once again removed the categorization, because there is no obvious connection between Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians. Categories should not be added to pages on which there is no information that would enlighten a reader as to why they are present. The category is sufficiently mysterious and, apparently, controversial, as to require prior discussion on the article's talk page before you should even consider re-adding it. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lusitanian has recently added the following utterance to the introduction to the Rosicrucian article: "Also, it becomes clear that this holy Order initiated and shaped the whole Renaissance movement of the western world through the works and cooperation of evolved individuals in the fields of arts, literature, religion and science since the 14th century, under the auspice of those Compassionate Ones in charge of mankind's evolution." This is way beyond mainstream thought. Paul B 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Hoghton Will

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

It seems that Bob Bearman, Archivist at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, has "conclusively" disproved any connection with Shakespeare (which is disappointing, but there you go). His article Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte? Revisited appears in the Spring 2002 issue of Shakespeare Quarterly (Johns Hopkins University). This is a subscription-only product, so I can't read it, let alone cite it. Does anyone have access?

While we're in this paragraph: re "asseted nexus". "Asset nexus" (the ambassadorial connection) would be a neat way of describing the supposed introduction from Shakespeare's schoolmaster, Cottam, to his old master Hoghton. As far as I know, "asseted nexus" means something else. Is it a typo? Can anybody put me right?

--Old Moonraker 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have online access, but not from here! I'll have to wait till tomorrow. What do you want, a summary? Paul B 23:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the offer: it's just that I am slightly in awe of the definitive and certain "and is now accepted wisdom" in relation to the sojourn as a schoolmaster in Lancashire. Bearman's conclusions seem to undermine this and might be worth including for the sake of balance. --Old Moonraker 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I too question any claim of "accepted wisdom" when it comes to Shakespeare's lost years. Is it POV or Weasel? or both? Smatprt 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have access. I'll give it a read if I can. Wrad 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well I had to wait till the library opened, since the online text does not reach back to 2002 due to "moving wall", apparently. Anyway, the gist of the argument is that Shakeshafte was a common name in the area of Hoghton's influence - Preston. There are several recorded William Shakeshaftes from local Shakeshafte families, and the size of the bequest suggests that Mr Shakeshafte was probably a middle aged man, not a youth. There is no "conclusive proof", but Bearman argues that it is unlikely that Shakeshafte was the bald bloke from Stratford. Paul B 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reputation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture; an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's audience.

This sounds like somethig written from personal experiance, so I think that this needs a source as lots of things encountered in the school room on a hot summer's day brings "boredom beyond comprehension". Also I think some mention should be made in this section of the connection between rap and hip hop and Shakespeare:

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Previous peer review issues to address before FA status

Latest comment: 18 years ago54 comments12 people in discussion

Many of the issues in the last peer review were unaddressed, so I am posting it in this more prominent place. Please add {{done}} tags to things that are done or discuss issues that may not need to be fixed. Wrad 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

William Shakespeare

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Adam Cuerden talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Balloonman

  • I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.
  • "about 37 plays" immediately makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explanation, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
    • I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I've tried "wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays" as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? Broken edit by AndyJones
  • I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sentence about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
  • Wordy, for example: He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy can be shortened to He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy. "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination?
  • "living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, you don't need the word "living".
  • The translation into every language also needs to be cited.
  • put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
  • The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.
  • "Shakespeare's last two plays, play1 and play2, were written in 1613."
    • Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were written in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! AndyJones 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I think each point has been dealt with. 1) The article has been mostly copyedited. 2) We agreed long sentences were not a problem per se, but only poorly put together ones. We shouldn't assume our readers have a stunted reading level. 3) This is contentious. People do not need references to be aware of these claims: most first hear them in school, many elsewhere. Adding references only serves to appease those uncomfortable with the claims, although they make very little difference. RedRabbit1983 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree as regards (1) and (2). But as regards (3): we are aiming for featured article status: requiring sources isn't unreasonable, even for things which all of us here at the talk page are happy to accept as obviously true. AndyJones 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nat91

Yannismarou

  • "William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
  • "(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
  • By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
  • "Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a {citationneeded}.
  • "He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599." Source here?
  • "Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
    •   Done
  • In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the same forms of prose.
    •   Done
  • For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
  • Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think.
  • What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
    •   Not done a lengthy section on Shakespeare's influence in the modern age would quickly degenerate into a trivia section. The reputation section adequately covers his reception in later ages; essentially his plays are performed with updated stagecraft. RedRabbit1983 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • "Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
  • Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
  • In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
The ISBNs I've just added are works I've used for footnotes. Is this duplication? --Old Moonraker 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • At the risk of starting an ugly debate, it seems that the authorship paragraph is uncommonly short compared to the other "speculations" sections. It has been cut down so much that the general whys and wherefores behind the debate are not even mentioned. If this is to be a short summary of the main article, shouldn't a few of the more prominent topics within the subject be mentioned? Perhaps a statement or two about why the subject even exists?Smatprt 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • Rather than digging that up again, I think we should stick to the plan of fixing what was seen as wrong in the old peer review right now. Wrad 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Notes by Adam Cuerden talk

Let's get this to FA status! Wrad 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply


Oh, god, I remember that... I went through, added a fair number of citations, but couldn't find all of them and noone else was around at the time. Glad to see this is finally moving forward. Adam Cuerden talk 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Style and Reputation

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

In my opinion, the style and reputation sections will be the hardest. I suggest we use only the most rigorous citations for these sections, meaning highly reliable academic citations. Is that ok with people?--Alabamaboy 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Highly reliable academic citations are most certainly not ok! RedRabbit1983 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant we should aim for using book citations by established scholars (which doesn't mean overly obtuse academic articles and such). I just feel we should steer clear of using website citations for these sections b/c they're going to be controversial. Is that acceptable? If not, why? Best,--Alabamaboy 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Both sections are heavily under-cited at the moment. There are chapters on reputation in two of the Cambridge University Press "Companions" which I have here. I'll look through those and see what I can source from there. AndyJones 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've started on the above. I've got a problem with the following extract, though. It strikes me as clearly (almost self-evidently) true, but I cannot source it:

This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture.

Does anyone have any thoughts? AndyJones 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tracked down some solid references for that section and added them in. Do they work for you?--Alabamaboy 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Excellent. Well   Done. AndyJones 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, if I'm correct, all that's left is the Further Reading ISBNs and the Style section. Wrad 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have nothing against it, unless anyone has anything they want to address beforehand. Wrad 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

We're ready for peer review.--Alabamaboy 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let's go ahead and do it now, so that there is no lull in the process. Wrad 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Types of plays

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are two different listings of the types of plays written by Shakespeare. In this article it states that he wrote four kinds, History, Comedy, Tragedy and Romance. While in a linked article Shakespeare's Playsin jean It only states the first three listed above. I have always been taught to use the first three and that all his Romances could fit into the other categories. Still this may just be a matter of opinion so I changed nothing in the articles.

  • Yes, you can classify the plays in a billion ways: some people are fond of separating the "romances" from the other comedies, others carve out the "problem plays", or identify some-or-other plays as "tragi-comedies". No-one uses these labels with any consitency. The only proper course for an encyclopedia is to classify according to the First Folio (comedies, tragedies, histories) then to deal with all the other nuances in the article's text. AndyJones 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd also prefer to go with the traditional comedies, tragedies, histories breakdown.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with AnyJones - the only proper designation should be the traditional types as set down by the first folio - comedies, tragedies and histories, then explain the more modern designations within the context of the play pages themselves. Smatprt 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Typo

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't seem to be able to edit this page, but can someone fix the typo "contempories"? Cheers. Dieseldaddy 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it. I think it's blocking you because of how new you are. You should be able to edit this page yourself in a few days. Thanks for the help. Wrad 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Signatures

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Something should be said about the fact that the only documented samples of his handwriting are 6 different "Shakespeare signatures" and none of them spell "Shakespeare" the same way. Especially because there's a picture of one. Sydneysaurus 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Timeline

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I feel like there should be some sort of rough visual timeline of historical events and Shakespeare's events. However, it should be clear that the information isn't known for sure. Sydneysaurus 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. Wrad 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

sourcing format

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Greenblatt (2004:338) is persuasive that the "equivocator" arriving..." This quote from the religion section isn't following our sourcing method. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am the guilty editor—fixed. --Old Moonraker 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry about that ANdy, I'm tired and I didn't see the ref tags. I'll be watchful next time ;) Elenseel 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

First, excuse my ignorance. How are we from crowning this with Featured status? What steps are required?

I should also like to make a suggestion: in the reputation section we should add a reference to Shaw, as evidence of Shakespeare's pre-eminence. His contempt of bardolatry at least shows it to have existed.

By the way, I read Henry VI pt. 3 today, and saw for myself the passage Greene used in his parody. RedRabbit1983 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, the plan was to resolve all the old peer review issues, then resolve whatever else we see might be wrong. Then go for one last peer review and then FA. Wrad 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wrad's plan sounds good to me. As for the FA process, we have to nominate it as a featured article candidates. B/c this is such a high-profile article, I'd recommend that several of us both nominate it and follow the article through the FAC process.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good plan. I'm sure it will get a lot of thorough reviews. I also plan to leave a short message on the talk page of all project members notifying them of each step's beginning and inviting them to participate. Wrad 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

References to Shaw now added. AndyJones 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Top 50

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to point out that this article is one of the top 50 most-viewed articles on wikipedia. Making it an FA is sure going to be great for this encyclopedia. Wrad 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree. This is a biggie.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I should add, though, that seeing some of the articles ahead of Shakespeare makes me question the priorities of too many people in the world. List of Konoha ninja? Pokémon Diamond and Pearl? Still, at least we're ahead of Paris Hilton (even if only barely ahead).--Alabamaboy 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Style and influence

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have been troubled by the style section, which seemed to me to be focusing not on Shakespeare's style but on his influence (and since I originally wrote most of that section, any fault there rests with me). To try and fix this, I've separated that section into a style section and an influence section. I've also added more info and references to the section. Please let me know what people think about this.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

For my part, I think the new organization works better. I think perhaps the middle two paragraphs of the "Influence" section might work better as a separate section titled "Dramaturgy" or "Stagecraft," placed between the Style and Influence sections. I had also been thinking about the contents of the style section, and I would like to add some more information, to wit
  • his extensive use of couplets during the 1590s (and as late as "All's Well")
  • the tendency in his early plays for rhetoric/poetry to overwhelm character and
  • his subordination of rhetoric to character in the Jacobean plays
  • his attempts to respond to or mimic the satiric drama in the early Jacobean plays
  • the highly idiosyncratic verse of the final plays

Ordinarily, of course, I'd be bold and do it without prior approval, but since I'm a latecomer to this I wanted to get some thoughts from those of you who have been working on this page first!Jlittlet 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be okay with having subsections in the influence section (but to do that, the overall section would need to be expanded). Please feel free to add in your other suggestions. Just be sure to add good citations b/c we'll be called on it during the FA process if they are missing. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Technical Difficulties Regarding the Influence Section

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking at this page to do a report, and after a little clicking around I realized that when this article is accessed as a redirection from a search for "Shakespeare", the Influence section is visible, while this entire section is missing when the user searches for "William Shakespeare". Obviously some kind of simple keyword editing problem, and i'm sure it can be fixed easily. Sk8rsam224 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Sam K (sk8rsam224) June 3 2007 10:05 PM ESTReply

Let me do some experimenting... Hmm. Worked fine for me. Maybe just a temporary glitch in the database. Wrad 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply


Started new peer review

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started the new peer review. The link is at the top of this page, or simply go to Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

References

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just looking over our references. If we want FA they need to be more consistent. We have some refs that start with titles, and others that start with authors. Also, our web citations should probably all use the web cite template, since they also vary more than an FA should. Wrad 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just responded to a new {{fact}} request using the standard {{cite book}} template. I like it because it's easy to deploy and because the output is standardized, but the WP:CITET page warns that some "editors find them annoying". As only an occasional contributor, I'm not pushing this but deferring to those who have been putting in so much hard work recently. --Old Moonraker 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Style

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I've temporarily removed At the end of each scene in his plays, Shakespeare also uses a couplet, in which there are two rhyming lines of poetry from the end of the "style" paragraph. It seemed to sit rather uneasily there, separated as it was from the "rhythm and verse" section. It could probably do with a citation as well. --Old Moonraker 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Yes, I appreciate your concerns, but my sentence was quite true. If you take out a copy of Romeo and Juliet or perhaps Julius Caesar, you would see that at the end of each scene, there is a couplet! I remember my English teacher telling us about this in a lecture before; this is a characteristic of a Shakespearean tragedy. Now, for comedies, I really don't know; I haven't read any. You also said that you need a "citation". Now I really can't say anything about plays but Google search for "couplet shakespeare" mentions plenty of sonnets. Does this help you?--Romeo in love 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I did a search, and found a good site here, but it is careful to say that couplets only occur at the in some of the speeches and scenes. I don't know if this is notable enough... Wrad 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
What exactly do you mean by "notable"? Is there a particular definition of "notable" to follow here?--Romeo in love 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Thanks, Romeo in love, for your understanding response, here and on my talk page. --Old Moonraker 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, if it happened in every scene, maybe. Some scenes just isn't notable enough. I'm sure Shakespeare did almost everything in some of his scenes. If there was a source that said "all", that would be notable, if not for this article, then for the Shakespeare's plays article. Wrad 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Moonraker. "Many" is fine. Basically it just boils down to the fact that you have to have a source. Wrad 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unsourced Shakespeare

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

This is a list of unsourced comments in this article. Some are true and just require sourcing just for form's sake, and many could in my view happily remain unsourced: others strike me as contentious, possible OR, or unencylopedically worded:

  • He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy
  • his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.
  • many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage in English and other languages.
  • was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in April 1564,
  • the son of John Shakespeare, a successful glover and alderman from Snitterfield, and Mary Arden, a daughter of the gentry. *His birth is assumed to have occurred at the family house on Henley Street.
    • All but the Henley Street thing is sourced later in the same paragraph. I think we should cut the Henley street, personally. I just read a source saying this is contested and no one really knows. Wrad 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year.
  • At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, on 28 November 1582.
  • One document identified her as being "of Temple Grafton," near Stratford, and the marriage may have taken place there.
  • Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage.
  • There appears to have been some haste in arranging the ceremony, presumably because Anne was three months pregnant.
  • On 26 May 1583, Shakespeare's first child, Susanna, was baptised at Stratford.
  • Twin children, a son, Hamnet, and a daughter, Judith, were baptised on 2 February 1585.
  • Hamnet died aged 11 in the Black Plague in 1596; his date of death is not known, but he was buried on 11 August.
  • By late 1594 Shakespeare was an actor, writer and part-owner of a playing company known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men
  • like others of the period, the company took its name from its aristocratic sponsor, Lord Chamberlain.
  • The group became popular enough for the new king James I (1603) to adopt the company himself, after which it became known as the King's Men.
  • Shakespeare's writing shows him indeed to be a man of the theatre, with many phrases, words, and references to the stage.
  • By 1596 Shakespeare had moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate,
  • and by 1598 he appeared at the top of a list of actors in Every Man in His Humour written by Ben Jonson.
  • By 1598, his name also began to appear on the title pages of his plays, presumably as a selling point.
  • By 1604, he had moved north of the river, lodging just north of St Paul's Cathedral with a Huguenot family named Mountjoy. He helped arrange a marriage between the Mountjoys' daughter and their apprentice Stephen Bellott. Bellott later sued his father-in-law for defaulting on part of the promised dowry, and Shakespeare was called as a witness.
  • Various documents recording legal affairs and commercial transactions show that Shakespeare grew rich enough during his stay in London to buy a property in Blackfriars, London and own the second-largest house in Stratford, New Place.
  • Each year on his claimed birthday, a new quill pen is placed in the writing hand of the bust.
  • He may have written the epitaph on his tombstone:
  • Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and reworked earlier stories and historical material.
  • Hamlet (c. 1601) is probably a reworking of an older, lost play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet),
  • and King Lear is an adaptation of an earlier play, called King Leir.
  • Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups: >early romantic comedies and histories (such as A Midsummer Night's Dream and Henry IV, Part 1); >middle period romantic comedies and tragedies (including his most famous tragedies, Othello, Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear, as well as "problem plays" such as Troilus and Cressida); >later romances (such as The Winter's Tale and The Tempest). The earlier plays range from broad comedy to historical nostalgia. The middle-period plays have grander themes, addressing issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and ambition. The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and magic and other fantastical elements. However, the borders between these genres are never clear.
  • Some of Shakespeare's plays first appeared in print as a series of quartos; but most remained unpublished until 1623 when the posthumous First Folio was published by John Heminges and Henry Condell, two actors who had been in Shakespeare's company.
  • The traditional division of his plays into tragedies, comedies, and histories follows the pattern of the First Folio.
  • It is at this point that stage directions, punctuation and act divisions enter his plays, setting the trend for further future editorial decisions.
  • Modern criticism has also labelled some of his plays "problem plays", or tragi-comedies, because they defy easy categorisation, or perhaps purposefully break conventions. The term "romances" has also been preferred for the later comedies.
  • There are many controversies about the exact chronology of Shakespeare's plays. The lack of an authoritative print version of his plays during his lifetime accounts for part of the textual problem, the difficulty of identifying which plays he wrote, and for the different textual versions of some of his plays. The textual problem became a major concern for most modern editions. Textual corruptions also resulted from printers' errors, compositors' misreadings, or wrongly scanned lines from the source material. Additionally, in an age before standardised spelling, Shakespeare often wrote a word several times in a different spelling, exacerbating transcribers' confusions. Modern scholars believe Shakespeare revised his plays throughout the years, sometimes producing two different versions of one play.
  • Shakespeare's sonnets are a collection of 154 poems that deal with such themes as love, beauty, and mortality. All but two first appeared in the 1609 publication entitled Shakespeare's Sonnets; numbers 138 ("When my love swears that she is made of truth") and 144 ("Two loves have I, of comfort and despair") had previously been published in a 1599 miscellany entitled The Passionate Pilgrim. The Sonnets were written over a number of years, probably beginning in the early 1590s.
  • Besides his sonnets, Shakespeare also wrote three known longer poems: Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece and A Lover's Complaint. These poems appear to have been written either in an attempt to win the patronage of a rich benefactor (as was common at the time) or as the result of such patronage. For example, The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis were both dedicated to Shakespeare's patron, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.
  • In addition, Shakespeare wrote the short poem The Phoenix and the Turtle. The anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him upon its first publication in 1599, but in fact only five of its poems are by Shakespeare and the attribution was withdrawn in the second edition.
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)
Andy: I should point out that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources, "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." While a number of the items you listed do indeed need citations, we shouldn't feel the need to cite statements like "The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year" which are unlikely to be challenged. Doing so can quickly fill up an article with cite references, which can make an article difficult to read. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Andy (I'm assuming this is your list after looking at the history). Could you put a citation needed template by all of these? It would help me. Many of them may appear not to be cited, but are covered under later citations. Wrad 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since the list is so huge, I'm going to address them one by one. within your text. Wrad 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, read my comment for individual exceptions. Other than that, I have put citation needed tags on all remaining sources listed (and a few more). I think we can assume that when they are all gone then the issues brought up above have been resolved. Wrad 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes, sorry all, I had to leave Wikipedia for a real-life reason before I'd really finished what I was doing on the above so I just pressed "save". Once I've finished this list I also promise to start going through with strikeout tags, or maybe with {done} and {notdone} tags. My thinking, of course, is to ensure that we don't go into the FA process with any statements on the page which are unsourced when they need sourcing, and that we remove any OR. I note Alabamaboy's point and of course I agree with you up to a point, although there's still the question of where we actually draw the line. Wrad, your comments are really useful. Also, I have a copy of Schoenbaum on my desk at home, so I can probably source any unsourced biographical stuff, this evening. AndyJones 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

British vs. American Spelling

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This article isn't consistent when it comes to British vs. American spelling. In some places it uses, British ("characterisation", "baptised") and others it uses American ("popularized" and "capitalized"). Since the Bard is British. I'm leaning that way, but it doesn't really matter, just as long as it is consistent. Wrad 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really dont care - it's just that Wiki redirects to the American spelling. I thought - shouldn't we be consistant with Wikipedia? But I certainly won't make an issue of this if you want it Brit. Smatprt 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, Wikipedia doesn't care as long as it's consistent. Let me see if I can find the policy on it... Here it is After looking at it again, I guess it should be British... Yes. I'm going to move per the MOS guideline that the spelling standard be British for this article, on the basis that the Bard is a Brit. Wrad 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes - that looks to be correct - YIKES! That means all 5000 articles related to Shakespeare need a british spell check!Smatprt 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tough call, but necessary imho. If we can't insist on using British spelling for Shakespeare - of all people - we may as well abandon it altogether. But are there really 5,000 articles related to Shakespeare? -- JackofOz 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this is the huge problem you're worrying about. Most Shakespeare-related articles are already British spelling, and I correct Americanisms whenever I notice them creeping in. Yes, policy is that this article, being about a British subject, should be in British English, and I think we someone should go through and make it consistent, in view of the fact that we're about to apply for FA status. AndyJones 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually - I don't hink it's a huge problem - just a dauting task. Thankfully, we can rely on the Brits to watch for these spelling variations.Smatprt 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Shakespeare&oldid=136354688"