Talk:Oxfordian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

This article's name seems to me a little awkward. Kpjas 16:07 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Oxfordian theory? - Hephaestos 03:56 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. scc 04:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Read Shakespearean authorship - this article is almost entirely redundant with the relevant section of that one. Is there significantly more to say about this, rather than just merging and redirecting? - David Gerard 16:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to sympathize, but in answer to your question, I think there is indeed significantly more to say. I've updated the page to provide some references to Oxford's Elizabethan-era reputation as a concealed writer, a link to Professor Alan Nelson's archive of transcripts from de Vere's letters, and a few edits for clarity in other sections. As I see it, this page is needed to supply greater detail than can reasonably be given on the Shakespearean authorship page. The case for Oxford is a dynamic and rapidly growing one. Details: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html

Contents 1 External links 2 Criticisms 3 Clue on Shakespeare's Grave? 4 POV bias 5 Spelling of name 6 Oxenford 7 what next?- To Smatprt

[edit] External links

Most of the linked websites have a bias, so putting them in a category would seem a service. If there is a site without whiff of controversy, that should probably be listed first. Categories might be: Neutral, Oxfordian, and Stratfordian. Perhaps it is sufficient to order the links by these three categories without adding titles. Fotoguzzi 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, though there'll be some dispute about what counts as "neutral"! Paul B 12:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave the links a tidyup and divided them. None of them seemed to count as 'neutral'. The Singing Badger 15:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I've beefed up this section in line with the stuff I've done of the Baconian theory page - only I forgot to sign in first, so they look like anonymous edits in the history. I might do some more cross-fertilization between the two sections.Bedesboy 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clue on Shakespeare's Grave?

Growing up as a kid, I had never heard that there was a controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare until an issue of "Games Magazine" that came out in the 1990s, which postulated that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere and even used a supposed "code" in the inscription on his grave to explain that the grave itself admits to the true authorship. It was something about a v-shaped pattern where it spelled something out, and had the initials "EDV" in it, and explained why there were some oddly arranged smaller letters in the inscription that supposedly didn't make sense the way they're on there, but can be explained by the code. I don't know if I actually believe the theory - but it was the first time I heard the Oxfordian arguement and it fascinated me, even if I didn't necessarily believe in it. I've tried googling and I really can't find any information on this article or its claims about the grave. Even if the code theory was proven to be laughable or false, I'd imagine it would still be worthy of mentioning that it was put forward once. The problem is the article came out in a puzzles magazine with limited distribution before the internet age really took off - hence I can't find a thing about it. If anyone knows something about this article, or has ever heard this "grave code" theory before, I'd love to read about it again. Not to "prove" the Oxfordian side, but just to list as another arguement. --63.167.255.231 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but perhaps your vague recollection refers to the purported anagram attached to "MENTE. VIDEBOR"? If so, there are the links [1] and [2] (among others) that discuss it. Myasuda 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV bias

This article unrelentingly presents one side of a case. For example, "1604" (an early death for the Earl) should be a negative to the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays, but instead we're told it's a positive.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the statement that many prominent early 20th century thinkers such as Sigmund Freud believed in the theory needs a source ASAP, also appears to be an example of argumentum ad verecundiam but those are generally allowed. I'm putting a reminder on my to-do list, no source by the weekend (1/20/2007) and it goes. Quadzilla99 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a logical fallacy to use Freud's opinion as evidence of the truth of the underlying proposition. It is true and interesting that he held the opinion, though. I'll source this from Mitchell (because that's easy) in the next few minutes. People can feel free to improve the source. AndyJones 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of name

Shld outright falsehoods be allowed, even if credited to a Supreme Court Justice? The opening discussion of "terminology" claims that "most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, Shak- or sometimes Shag- or Shax-, whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake". But "Shax" in fact comes from a court record of plays performed for James' coronation. It is not at all the only case in which an unambiguous reference to the author is spelled "Shak.. " or some variant of that. But the mistaken claim here is not more egregious than many others in the article.18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)128.135.232.240

• Yes (and your last point is articulately expressed by Kathman in the article linked to in footnote 2). I think this section needs rewiting, for clarity. I'll give it some thought. AndyJones 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxenford

How is it confusing? It is confusing that Meres calls "Oxenford" "best for comedies" when we claim it is about Oxford. Shouldn't we introduce the fact that both "Oxford" and "Oxenford refer to the same person. Or should we delete the Meres reference to avoid confusion? Jvbishop 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it muddies up a very clean opening paragraph. If you really think the info is imperative, I would suggest a footnote.Smatprt 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think it should have at least some mention. You are right that the opening paragraph is rather well written. I shall think on how to best put it in. Jvbishop 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• May I suggest either an expanded footnote, or more appropriately, to make the explanation where the first "oxenford" actually occurs on the page. Frankly, though, it seems like one of those many minor details that doesnt warrant further space usage.Smatprt 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what next?- To Smatprt

One of the early paragraphs states that the Oxford case is "substantially based on striking parallels between the text of the plays and Oxford's life" but the section covering this is rather lacking. I think this is the section you need to expand on next. I like a lot of the edits you made yesterday though. Good work. Jvbishop 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I will certainly look at that and see what I can add.
  • Also - I agree with others who feel the terminology section needs work. Right now, it's pretty much a mess. Can anyone simplify it - or combine it with the overview? Frankly, I think the issue is a non-starter for Oxfordians and already repeats what is on the Shakespeare Authorship page. Is it really needed under Oxfordian Theory, since it isn't specific to Oxford? Any suggestions - anyone?Smatprt 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)