Talk:William Shakespeare

New image

File:Procession of Characters from Shakespeare's Plays

I removed a new image, which has been restored. I did actually remove it in error - mistakenly thinking it had been added to external links, so I won't revert the re-addition. I'm pretty familiar with this Stothardesque image, having edited the file-description and spent some while trying to identify the characters a while back. I'm in two minds whether or not it should be here. Image overload is always a danger. The question is - does it add anything? The editor who added it did so with the summary "I had FPC in my mind when I added that". AFAIK, the file is considered "good" in the context of FPC because of the high quality of the image-file, not because it is an aesthetically good, important or relevant picture, so I don't see why this would be an appropriate criterion. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any less aestheticism in it. It shows a rare collection of his characters in a frame, which is a good encyclopedic value..--The Herald : here I am 14:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "less aestheticism". Less than what? My point was that FPC is not about judging the aesthetic merits of a picture (ie your justification). This is by a minor imitator of Stothard. My main worry is image overload, and whether this serves any useful purpose for the article. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It might serve a useful purpose if the characters were identified. As it stands it wouldn't add much for the average encyclopedia reader who is not intimately familiar with the plays, IMHO. I recognize characters from Twelfth Night, Henry IV, As You Like It, The Tempest, King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth. I couldn't immediately find a source that specifically identifies the individual figures, but I'm sure one exists. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The website of the Yale Centre for British Art, which owns the painting, lists the characters represented [1]. Unfortunately, it does so in an apparently chaotic way (not left to right, or some other systematic format), so it's not always clear which character is which, though most can be confidently identified from the list. The list also has 28 names (including Shakespeare himself), but there are only 27 figures. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- I only count 26, including Crab (Launce's dog from Two Gentlemen). Who am I missing? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

None. I misremembered. There are 26 characters depicted (including Crab), but 27 names listed. The YCBA gives no source for the names, so it's not clear where it comes from. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the extra person listed as "people represented or subject" but not actually depicted is Shakespeare. Presumably someone put him in the list as a "subject" of the painting, even though he's not in it. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The website works by linking the names to images, so if you click on the name you get all images with, say, Hamlet in them, and all images of Shakespeare subjects, which is why WS is listed. I note that we do already have a painting representing characters in Shakespeare plays. It's the one at the bottom, Sir John Gilbert’s The Plays of William Shakespeare, in which plays are represented by characters in a sub-School of Athens format. Though Gilbert's is the more interesting painting, I think the Yale image is more effective for the article, as its frieze-like structure and compositional simplicity make it easier to see on screen. I would suggest replacing the Gilbert with the Yale image, but centred as it is now rather than at the right. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The choice is yours :) I did enjoy seeing which figures were in common (most obviously, Bottom, Crab, Othello) but regret that neither artist seems to have depicted "Lavinia, her hands cut off, her tongue cut out, and ravished." - Nunh-huh 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Titus Andronicus was a bit too graphic for the Victorians. Another option would be the opposite -- replacing the Yale image with the Gilbert painting, along with a caption, since it's fairly obvious who's who, and there's a broader presentation for the average reader -- the finding of baby Perdita from Winter’s Tale, Hamlet and Ophelia, Shylock and Portia, Lear in the storm with Poor Tom, Henry VIII (in a classic pose) and Wolsey, Falstaff and the merry wives (with the washing), Prospero, Miranda and Caliban, Launce and Crab, and the menagerie from Midsummer Night’s Dream. Just a thought. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gilbert painting is already in the article, so how can it replace the other one? I see no point in moving it, as the earlier section is already cluttered, and it's not best suited for centre-display because of its shape. As I said, it's a more interesting image, but on the page it's not really legible, even if one is viewing the artricle on a largish computer screen. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then, how about moving it to Chronology of Shakespeare's plays as the image have no other page linked in the entire wikimedia. But that would face the similar problems, right?--The Herald : here I am 12:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

new stylometric research results

Please note the publication of new stylometric research results that have an impact on the Shakespeare corpus and his biography. Hartmut Ilsemann. William Shakespeare – Dramen und Apokryphen: Eine stilometrische Untersuchung mit R. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2014, ISBN: 978-3-8440-3096-9, 355 pages, in German. R stylo, a suite of stylometric tools, was used to analyse the so called Shakespeare apocrypha, a body of Renaissance plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare in part or in toto, but whose authorship has never been proven or refuted convincingly. As R is quite new and embodies a combination of powerful procedures and functions the various methodological approaches were tested simultaneously to make sure that results complied with criteria like evidence and plausibility. In the past many stylometric investigations relied on the relative frequency of function words, and PCA and multivariate analyses made use of larger textual units which were very often the products of collaborative efforts of playwrights. R has the capacity to differentiate between authors even within smaller text units using the rolling delta procedure and its features. The overall result is that a large number of apocryphal plays are indeed Shakespeare’s, and many of the plays that make up the Shakespeare canon represent the last stage of a long and complicated process of rewriting and revising, finally concluded by Heminges and Condell in 1623. The first drafts are shorter and simpler in their plot construction. Many refer to the Queen’s Players, a troupe of actors that dominated the 1580s and dissolved around 1591. There is good reason to believe that Shakespeare served his apprenticeship in the mid 1580s as a playwright with colleagues like Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene, George Peele, Thomas Nashe and Samuel Rowley, a prolific writer who is scarcely mentioned in secondary literature, but whose stylistic features can be found in an astounding number of plays. Among the plays that were later given a prominent position and a new name within the canon are The True Tragedy of Richard III (Richard III), The Taming of a Shrew (The Shrew), The Troublesome Reign of King John (King John), King Leir (King Lear) and The Famous Victories of Henry V (Henry V). Shakespeare also wrote Fair Em, Edward III, and had a fair share in a number of additional plays like Edmund Ironside, and Mucedorus. Sir Thomas More, Sir John Oldcastle, and Thomas Lord Cromwell all contain Shakespearian contributions and show traces of early compositions and later revisions and additions. The first part of Richard II, also known as Thomas of Woodstock, was written by Samuel Rowley. Only act five is by Shakespeare, which explains Marlowe signals in Richard II. Shakespeare apparently used archive material that Marlowe and he had gathered. Kyd and Shakespeare also wrote Arden of Faversham, and Locrine is Marlowe’s work. Some observations should not be left out. Thomas Kyd and Shakespeare collaborated in many ways. Kyd contributed to Titus Andronicus, and The Spanish Tragedy shows Shakespeare’s style in some places. All of this was concluded not from word frequencies alone, but from a series of investigations that made use of character bi- and trigrams which evaluated more text than word frequencies and were statistically more sound. Volume I roughly covers the period up to the opening of the Globe, and volume II will have to deal with some errors like Wilkins having written the first two acts of Pericles (once again the result of an insufficient number of word frequencies). But there will also be among other plays the forgeries of Ireland, and the Shakespearean stylistics of Theobald’s Double Falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.212.130 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation about shakespeare section

Is this really necessary in a serious encyclopedia? Speculation about historical figures is mostly groundless and based on interpretations of their lifes based on modern cultural milieu. The religion section in particular is absurd as it postulates he may have lacked belief in God, which is patently untrue as he wrote numerous sonnets expressing a clear belief in heaven and hell, which would be absurd if he were an atheist or agnostic. We don't have speculation sections in the articles on Newton or Mozart, so why have one for Shakespeare?--Superdupersmartdude (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably because we know very well what Newton and Mozart thought, since they left a large archive of letters and other personal documents. Shakespeare didn't. Hence the speculation. Your argument that Shakespeare must have believed in God because he refers to heaven and hell is as convincing as saying George Bernard Shaw must have been a Christian because he wrote Don Juan in Hell and depicted the Last Judgement in The Simpleton of the Unexpected Isles. We know what Shaw really thought because he said so in his prefaces. Shakespeare didn't write any. And of course, Marlowe has Faustus going to Hell, but his contemporaries were clear that he wasn't a Christian. As for the sonnets, they emphasise that immortality is achieved by 1. having children (sonnets 1-17) and 2. being in poems that will be remembered (sonnet 18 etc). The words 'heaven' and 'hell' are most notably used to refer to the pleasures and dangers of sex (sonnet 129). Paul B (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, put another way, the sonnets, though written by Shakespeare, are meant to be read as the words of fictional speakers who are not Shakespeare. If not so, you make the mistake of the "speculators" who imagine Will was in love with a dark lady *and* a young man.

Which is not to say that I disagree that the speculation section here would benefit from being cut down to a few sentences with the appropriate links to other articles. But what's here is an improvement from prior versions, and it's not certain if anyone still here would object to further synopsizing. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the value of the section on portraiture in "speculations". It's worth a sentence or two at most. I don't think we can exclude the authorship, religion and sexuality stuff, but it could all be consolidated into a single section. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There's much even in the authorship paragraph that could be reasonably excised. For example, it's pretty meaningless to say "but interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, continues into the 21st century." So does interest in Bigfoot, little green men, and faked moon landings. The sentence is just there to provide a link to a former editors favorite obsession. So I would support anything you'd care to do in terms of combining and judiciously shortening all of these sections. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms

An editor Zacwill16 added these to the page, which seemed reasonable to me. I didn't understand why they weren't there before. But another Binksternet deleted them because "Shakespeare never raised an army so he doesn't need a coat of arms". A very strange reason. Is there yet another WP rule I've missed? Myrvin (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. I did not find out until just now that Shakespeare's father John had applied for a coat of arms, and that Shakespeare himself had re-opened the application after he was successful as a playwright, and thus his father received the coat of arms five years before death. The coat of arms is believed to be a sign that Shakespeare wanted to pass his success on to his descendants, and to obtain a bit of immortality.

These facts reveal Shakespeare's concern with worldly success, and ought to be written into the biography. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which added File:Shakespeare1COA.png. Some previous discussions are:

• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 17#A few minor edits April 2009
• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 21#Coat of Arms February 2010
• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 22#Shakespeare's Coat of Arms September 2014

See Shakespeare authorship question#Historical evidence and Shakespeare's life#London and theatrical career for other versions with more details. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shakespeare's coat of arms is already in the article Shakespeare's life, in which his more 'worldly' concerns are discussed in detail. Of course his coat of arms is relevant, lots of images are relevant, but that's not really the main issue. People keep adding images to this article which is already very image heavy. We don't want to just pile up images. Likewise we don't need to go into detail on Shakespeare's masterplan for establishing the social status of his family, which is covered in the life article. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) unicorns