Talk:Edmond Malone

Shakspeare
Paul B.: Going by Spelling of Shakespeare's name (mostly yours, I see, and I very much enjoyed reading it), I modified the caption that indicates that Malone's spelling became the norm. As I interpret what you wrote, it was the norm only, or at least primarily, for scholars in their editions of Shakespeare. This is my experience as well. It certainly does not seem to be the clear norm for more general literary criticism or more popular writings. William Richardson's Essays on Some of Shakespeare's Dramatic Characters (1798) stuck to the First Folio spelling. Hazlitt's Characters spelled it "Shakespear", but Jeffrey reviewing the book had it as "Shakespeare". Coleridge frequently used "Shakspere". And so on. Certainly not the "norm" the way "Shakespeare" is today, even if it was so in a qualified sense. As a norm it seems to have been restricted to scholarly works, for the first one or two decades of the 19th century at least. (I do wonder sometimes if publishers and editors imposed a particular spelling on their authors, as they do today. If Coleridge went over to "Shakspeare", was it a personal choice? Hazlitt went over to "Shakspeare" as well in later criticism, and I suspect that was the choice of his publishers, not the same as that of Characters.)

Xover: As you see, once I saw activity on this page, I found things I could do. In view of Paul's bringing in the name-spelling thing, it occurs to me that the section title "Malone's Shakespeare" should probably be "Malone's Shakspeare", no? I didn't make the change because I don't have the volumes in front of me. (I just thought I downloaded the edition from Google but now see I made a mistake and have a much later edition from someone else.)

Also, the establishing a standard for scholarly spelling of Shakespeare's name is probably important enough to make its way into the article itself. I guess this can be done later, once there is more about Malone as a preeminent Shakesperean scholar.

--Alan W (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't see you had written this until today. I meant it was the norm for a period from the 1790s to the 1830/40s. However, I am accepting the word of a rather old secondary source for that. I don't really know quite how true it is, since one would have to do a lot of primary research to resolve the matter (and even then, stictly speaking, I couldn't use it on Wikipedia!) Part of the problem with this is that it is very difficult to know when spellings are a matter of personal choice and when they are simply a publisher's decision. Shaw certainly insisted on "Shakespear", but I have no evidence that Hazlitt did. As far as I am aware 'Shakspeare' was the standard spelling for around 30-40 years, but the now-standard 'Shakespeare' spelling never went away. I admit that it's difficult to be clear about this, but I think Coleridge habitually used 'Shakspeare' in manuscripts, but that his major works were published with the 'Shakspere' spelling. I have no evidence that this was his personal decision. Paul B (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be good if we had more support from reliable secondary sources. "Shakspeare" does seem to prevail in the period you point to, but I wouldn't want readers to think that it prevailed to the same extent that "Shakespeare" does today. That seems clear to anyone who has read widely in the literature of the period (as I have, though I don't claim to be an expert by any means; I did teach it for a while, though, in what now seems like a former life). Having worked in publishing for a long time (yes, another life), I know how little say authors can have over spelling, the editors imposing a "house style". My impression is that that sort of thing was beginning to happen in the period in question. Thus, editors might have thought that "Shakspeare" was established by scholarship, and so all other variants got changed by them to that one. This way Hazlitt's "Shakespear" became "Shakspeare" when he switched publishers (and both variants might have been imposed by editors, for all we know). Jeffrey was the editor of the Edinburgh Review, so there I think it reasonable to assume that "Shakespeare" was his own choice as both author and editor. Generally, as you say, it's hard to know who made what choice. And to follow this up in detail no doubt would, as you also say, end up being largely "original research", which of course we can't have. I'm just concerned that calling it the "norm" without qualification would lead readers to suppose that virtually all literate people used that spelling then the way they use "Shakespeare" now. And it doesn't take any real "research", just a superficial reading, to show that that was not at all the case. But if one hasn't done even the superficial reading, as many readers of this article might not have, one might get the wrong idea. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A little curio on this topic: Google Ngram view for: Shakespeare,Shakspeare,Shakspere,Shakespear. It certainly could appear that Malone's publication in 1790 killed off Shakspere after a brief popularity, and bringing Shakspeare to dominance; prevailing until around 1850 or so when Shakespeare began its path to current dominance. Is there perhaps some influential work published around 1850 that might explain it? @Alan: as previously mentioned, all the sections from London and on are essentially untouched from the original article, so I have no particular view of the choice there. Once I get around to that bit I'll probably make a judgement call—informed by talk page discussions, obviously, if anyone cares enough to put forth an opinion—based on what, say, Martin and Schoenbaum refer to it as. My general principle on these things is to stick with the original spelling (i.e. not modernize it or similar myself) unless it's had enough notice since to have acquired a modernized consensus spelling (i.e. that diverging from the consensus spelling could be argued to be going against the sources cited or borderline original research, etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting little curio, Xover! Of course, it is limited by the choice of books scanned for Google Books, but still very suggestive, and it seems to jibe with what we already believe. As Paul says, "Shakspeare" dominated in the early 19th century, apparently owing to Malone's influence. Still, not the way "Shakespeare" came to dominate in the later 19th and especially in the 20th century. It certainly would be great if we could find out just why "Shakespeare" took the lead after the middle of the 19th century.


 * Understood that you have not touched much of the article yet, Xover. When you do more, I will be happy to read it and offer what I can from my perspective. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just seen this. It's a great diagram! Does anyone mind if I copy this correspondence to the "Spelling" page? It's not really about Malone. The diagram confirms the dates of the "Shakspeare" phase and gives the two expected spikes in the "Shakspere" trend - fitting the two Gentlemen's Magazine debates in the 1780s, following Pinkerton, and 1840s, following Madden's and Hunter's books. It's interesting that the "Shakespeare" spelling increases steadily after that point. My guess is that's because the arguments for "Shakespeare" after the debate of the 1840s convinced most editors/writers - but that's just a guess. There's an intriguing third "Shakspere" spike during the 1940s, which I'm guessing is related to anti-Strat publications, but maybe it's some odd spin-off of Shakespeare references in patriotic wartime propaganda. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fascinating, isn't it? (To those of us interested in such stuff. I've seen these variant spellings for years without really thinking what might lie behind their use.) No objection from me, Paul, if you want to copy any of this to the "Spelling" page. This discussion certainly is more relevant there, though not entirely without its point here, since Malone was, as you have found, responsible for part of the naming trend. --Alan W (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posts have been copied to Talk:Spelling of Shakespeare's name and further discussion is there. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)