Talk:Life of William Shakespeare

Removing Lancashire detail

I'm removing the following material. It gives too much detail from a source that is not primarily a biographical source, and the quotation from Baker is misleading in that nobody believes that Shakespeare spent his entire youth and young adulthood in a butcher's yard and then magically showed up in London with a sheaf of plays under his arm. I'm putting it here so it will be available for discussion and to possibly reintegrate into the article.

BEGIN EXCISED MATERIAL

"Shakeshaft," or "Shakeschafte," was a common name in Lancashire at the time, but also one attributed to Shakespeare's grandfather Richard, who lived in Warwickshire. There are many circumstantial links between Shakespeare and the houses of Houghton, Hesketh, and other northern families of nobility. In the will of London goldsmith Thomas Savage (died 1611), Shakespeare's trustee at the Globe Theatre, one of the beneficiaries was Hesketh's widow. Scope for further speculation is offered by records showing that Lord Strange's Men, a company of players linked with Shakespeare's early career in London, regularly performed in the area and would have been well known to the Houghtons and the Heskeths. Early performances and the content of Love's Labours Lost and Titus Andronicus suggest Lancashire connections or origins. Members of the Stanley family, the ancestors of Lord Strange, figure prominently in Henry VI part 3 and Richard III. Malvolio and Oswald may be inspired by Lord Strange's steward, William Farington.

In support of a Lancashire answer for the lost years, Oliver Baker said simply: "In stating that the poet may have found a home with a band of players in Lancashire and passed the most impressionable years of his life in great houses, and with cultured people, instead of remaining in a butcher's yard till he married and left for London, I may not have provided the reading public with the sort of detailed narrative of Shakespeare's early life and work which we should all like to read, but it is one which puts less strain on their credulity than what has sometimes been offered them, and is at least less insulting to their intelligence."

END EXCISED MATERIAL Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cutting graf

I am cutting this paragraph and pasting it here for possible use later, for two reasons. Shakespeare was 18 when he was married, 4 or 5 years older than the usual entrance into university or apprenticeship, and the source does not support the first part and must be construed in a certain way to support the last, a violation of WP:OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As a married man Shakespeare was ineligible to attend university and debarred from taking up a formal indentured apprenticeship in a trade with an established guild but acting companies had so-called 'apprenticeships' which had much looser entry requirements. This is a possible clue to Shakespeare's route into the profession.

I'm also cutting these two sentences. I don't think that it's relevant to Shakespeare's life. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Edward VI, the king honoured in the school's name, had in the mid-16th century diverted money from the dissolution of the monasteries to endow a network of grammar schools to "propagate good literature... throughout the kingdom", but the school had originally been set up by the Guild of the Holy Cross, a church institution in the town, early in the 15th century. It was further endowed in 1482.

What to do with "Speculative accounts"?

Since this page covers Shakespeare's life, I think it only should include documented biographical material and reasonable inferences derived from his life and circumstances that are accepted by Shakespeare scholars. For example, it is a certainty--not a virtual certainty or a near certainty--that Shakespeare attended the Stratford grammar school, yet most biographers hedge when covering it, so I think including the probably curriculum as deduced from his works and from what we know of other, similar grammar schools is acceptable. But there is a large body of speculation, some of which is currently in the section Speculative accounts. What should be done with that? Most biographers integrate it into their own speculation, resulting in long-winded accounts that have no basis in documented facts or even circumstantial evidence, and this article doesn't have the room to do that nor should it, so what should happen to that material? Another article titled Shakespeare myths and traditions? I invite discussion on this topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lost years section

I edited that section because the source should be followed more closely. The source doesn’t claim [as the article claims] that “no evidence has survived.” In fact the evidence may indeed have survived, and it may even be known, but it just isn’t recognized, as such, or perhaps the evidence is there, but it hasn’t been found yet. Instead, the source says “we have no certain knowledge”. Which seems right. And the source does NOT refer to evidence to show “exactly where he was or why he left Stratford for London”. Instead it refers to “knowledge of his activities or whereabouts” — which is quite different. I also added the phrase “it was thought” because it appears that the idea (that nothing is known) is contradicted by the “certain” knowledge supported by Ackroyd and Duncan-Jones that follows at the end of the section. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

The lead paragraph contains a passage that has a citation, but in fact it appears to be nothing but invented by some WP editor. The citation does not support the passage at all what-so-ever. That’s not right or proper or decent editing. And that fictional passage is so dreary and negative. The fact is that there are tons and tons of contemporary records that indicate that Shakespeare was admired greatly. Which is well known. I mean, come on. Here’s the fraudulent cited-but-unsourced passage:

“few personal biographical facts survive, which is unsurprising in the light of his social status as a commoner, the low esteem in which his profession was held, and the general lack of interest of the time in the personal lives of writers.”

The citation leads you to Bate's book, and Bate says no such thing. Because he’s a scholar. So I’m going to delete it. The lead won’t miss it. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The citation leads you to three sources. Please take the trouble to read all sources cited. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And "tons and tons of contemporary records that indicate that Shakespeare was admired greatly" =/= "interest of the time in the personal lives of writers". Tom Reedy (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom, hello again, it's good to run into you again. Of course I did read the three sources mentioned. I think you would agree with me that the sources should be there for a purpose, including verification. And if you've read the sources I assume you've seen the problem. Regarding your last comment, I agree, but that doesn't solve the problem. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in the 18th Century

This article claims that “few personal biographical facts survive”. However the Shakespeare scholar Jonathan Bate in his book The Genius of Shakespeare takes issue with that, and points out that 18th Century editor George Steevens mistakenly considered that there were few personal biographical facts that have have survived. In fact Bate says that two centuries after Steevens wrote the official record is “much more comprehensive” — that there there are more than 50 documents (!) relating to Shakespeare in the London Public Record Office alone. It is as if this Wikipedia article is stuck in the 18th Century when it sides with Steevens against Bate. Bate doesn’t think that “few biographical facts survive” — but that the biographical details do not tell us much about Shakespeare’s character specifically “as it affects his plays”. This WP article not only ignores what Bate is saying, but takes Bate’s name and words and sticks them after a sentence (as a citation) — a sentence that Steevens would agree with, but not Bate. That is a fraudulent misuse of a citation and of Bate’s writing. I deleted it, but then a fellow editor in good faith reverted my edit and this nonsense remains in the article. This needs to be considered and discussed. Or else just re-deleted. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your first quotation, "few personal biographical facts survive", is accurate, but then you morph it into what you think it says, "few biographical facts survive". The type of biographical facts that we know about Shakespeare are not the kind that biographers would like to have. I suggest you read David Ellis' The Truth About William Shakespeare, one of the sources used in this article, before getting into an edit war. Other recommended reading would be S. Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives.

As to your contention of the inadequacy of the citations, I will double-check them today and add to them if necessary, but the statement is well-accepted in the Shakespeare scholarly community. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Tom Reedy, you recommended a pair of books for me to read. Thanks, I’ve read them already. If I may in turn recommend something: If you’re looking for books that agree with what I tried to delete from the lead — look in books by those authors known as “anti-Stratfordians”. You may not agree with them, I don’t, but they do make the claim that “few personal biographical facts survive”, and then they go on to drag “Shakespeare of Stratford” through the mud, and make him look like a bumpkin. You don’t really need to read other books to see, for starters, that the reference in this article (citation number one) to Bate is a fraud. Just try to verify it.

You’ve added another reference — a book by Bill Bryson. So now there are four books cited that don’t support the content. Bill Bryson, in his book, uses a quote, to indicate that it isn’t that “few personal biographical facts survive”, but that it may just seem that way to some. Bryson doesn’t say that anything is the result of Shakespeare being a “commoner”, or being held in “low esteem”, or being “not of interest to the general public” — those unsourced things that Wikipedia says in the lead.

The problem seems to be that the “commoner”, “low esteem”, and “not of interest” stuff seems to have been created by some anonymous Wikipedia editor — that may be why no one can find a source. Regarding your distinction between, "personal biographical facts” and "biographical facts”, that is, I’m afraid, a distinction without a difference. And to correct what you said about inadequacy: I’m saying the citations don’t support the content.

The idea of having a “truth” and going off in search of sources that will agree with you, is like believing the Earth is flat — you will find sources. But it’s wrong to say the Earth is flat, and then say you got the idea from Carl Sagan. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Go back and reread the sources cited. You must have missed a few things. With Southworth begin with the sentence "But there was another, telling reason for Shakespeare having remained invisible to so many of his contemporaries." With Wells begin with the sentence "Though it is often said that we know very little about Shakespeare’s life, it would be closer to the truth to say that we know quite a lot, but that what we know includes very little of what we should most like to know," and with Bryson with "David Thomas is not in the least surprised that he is such a murky figure." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I also finally remembered where I first read this about Shakespeare, which has been repeated by most Shakespeare scholars at one time or another, and I added the appropriate cite. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The three quotes you mention do not support what the article says: Your first quote claims that Shakespeare was “invisible” to his contemporaries, your second quote says “we know quite a lot” about Shakespeare’s life, your third quote says Shakespeare was a “murky figure”, and your new quote says that what we know about Shakespeare is an “average” amount. Whether those ideas are interesting, or meaningful, or are fleshed out by the authors, or not, they don’t really support what this article is actually saying:

“…few personal biographical facts survive, which is unsurprising in the light of his social status as a commoner, the low esteem in which his profession was held, and the general lack of interest of the time in the personal lives of writers.”

Regarding the latest source you added to citation number one, that book was written in 1884, not 1907 as the citation you added is incorrectly claiming. The 19th Century was a very long time ago, and the heading of this talk-page section is “Stuck in the 18th Century”, so it’s not quite that bad, but still. If you want to insist on including some cobwebby older ideas, they still need to be sourced, and the article could potentially say something like: “X says one thing, however Y says something else.” However, we seem to be getting nowhere, and looking at the recent edits to the article, things may be getting worse, and obviously a talk-page needs more that just a couple of fools like you and me speaking at "cross purposes" in order to get any kind of consensus. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The edition I have is 1907, so that's the one I put in the cite. Any edition past the seventh is considered the better one to use, and Halliwell-Phillipps is still very much consulted, like Chambers. The idea that Shakespeare's life is deficient in documentation is very much the scholarly consensus. You claim to have read Ellis' Truth about Shakespeare; if you had you would know that.

Which exact part of the quoted statement are you saying is not sourced? Because I think anyone who has read and understood the sources would agree with all of the ideas expressed, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your objections. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rereading the cited references, I see that the Wells reference, which I have already directed you to above, covers everything in the statement and should be sufficient by itself. I don't know what your deal is--whether you're not a native English speaker, or you don't have full access to the references (though links to online versions that include the cited pages are provided in the reference section), or you're just not editing in good faith for whatever reason, but as far as I am concerned this particular conversation is over. I suggest you take this to whatever noticeboard you think is appropriate. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop talking, Tom. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have received no notification that action has been taken at any noticeboard, and in fact I see you have not edited since your inappropriate comment. I assume that this particular issue has been put to rest. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Calendar in use?

Would these dates be Old Style? England didn't use the Gregorian calendar until 1752. Carlm0404 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Unless otherwise specified, the article uses new style dates (year starts on 1 January) but given in the Julian calendar. We should probably add a note about that somewhere. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it's any more necessary for this article than it is for the hundreds or thousands of other articles about topics that happened when the Julian calendar was in use. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's always good to be precise, and the Old Style vs. New Style stuff is always good for some confusion, so I've added in the note we had on William Shakespeare (and did some general cleaning while I was at it). --Xover (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Questia vs Google Books

Xover none of the information sourced to Honan is exclusive to him, and I think accessibility is important and we should avoid pay walls whenever possible. Is there any way we could include both links in the citation? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I agree regarding accessibility and reader convenience, it's just that I feel Google Books is a relatively poor way to achieve those aims. GBooks books get moved or dropped (not often, but often enough that I run into it on a fairly regular basis) and which pages are available for preview changes both over time and by the user's geographical location. I actually tend to have better luck with Amazon, both in terms of stability, number of pages available for preview, and lack of geographic restrictions. It also doesn't help that Google and Google Books are engaged in practices I find ethically questionable: even leaving aside their pervasive and intrusive tracking and use of your personal data to sell ads, they have locked up or made difficult to access a ton of public domain books and make no effort to correct it even when informed, much less proactively. And don't even get me started on their shockingly poor bibliographic metadata (they're somehow worse than the Internet Archive in a lot of cases). They sold libraries and archives on their scanning project based on making the works available, making it very hard for them to get any funding for doing so themselves later when GBooks failed to deliver on the "access" bit. And as they seem to have lost interest in books now that they've slurped them in to their machine learning corpus, there is no reason or sign that the situation will ever improve.

Questia, meanwhile, actually gives you access to the whole work, at a stable URL, and even transcribed into HTML / text (unlike the weird pseudo-PDF with text selection and copying disabled that Google uses). And while their service is paywalled, and I would much prefer a non-paywalled soource, at least their business model and tactics are not dependent on tracking you across the web and selling your attention to advertisers.

In any case, the reader can still get to a work on Google Books, and any number of other services, by clicking the ISBN: the interface could be a lot more elegant, but Special:BookSources does give you a ton of options for accessing the work and Google Books is the top entry in the list. Which reminds me, I should go find the right place to suggest the booksources function gets spruced up a bit: for example, why not give users an in-page popup (like the article previews when you hover over a link) with the most common books sources and a link to show "more..."? --Xover (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)