Talk:Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Proposed changes, 19 March 2012
I have been giving this article a bit of a spring-clean and, whilst I do not claim to have sorted out all of the sourcing problems, I think I have at least managed to improve it to a certain extent, and brought the footnotes/references format more into line with the SAQ item. Couldn't resist some minor tinkering with bits and pieces here and there too, of course, but not enough to shift the NPOV balance in any way, I think. Before replacing the article itself, however, I would like to check whether this revised version is generally acceptable. It's on my sandbox. Peter Farey (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In Fiction
Last year, I inserted this small section. The sources were ok, the novel (which I moved from "Marlovian' publications – in chronological order", AFAICT the only fiction there) award-winning and deserved a little text, and Upstart Crow is probably the most noted Shakespeare-sitcom in recent years.

While not of any great importance, it shows that this idea has gotten some notice beyond academics/it's fan-base. I think it should be kept, so I re-inserted it when it was removed.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not crazy about a In fiction section as such, but agree the two datums there merit inclusion; and absent a better way to include them in the article, an In fiction section seems a reasonable compromise/temporary measure. --Xover (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, but I'm afraid that it isn't true that Ros Barber's The Marlowe Papers was the only fictional work in the list. The works by Wilbur Zeigler and Henry Watterson were fiction, and Rodney Bolt's "History Play" was too. According to the Spectator, the latter "was a book which needed to be done perfectly or not at all. This is perfect." And the Independent said that "Bolt recreates an alternative life of Marlowe that compellingly views the known facts from a different angle."
 * I do agree, however, that Ros Barber's Desmond Elliott prize probably deserves a mention, and I would do even if she weren't a good friend of mine, and had said very nice things about me in her Acknowledgements (p.442)!
 * In fact the "Proponents" section does already tell us that the Zeigler and Watterson works are fictional, so rather than set up a new section can we not simply add something like the following paragraph to that section?
 * "The use of fiction to present aspects of the Marlovian theory, the approach favoured by both Zeigler and Watterson, was also employed by Ros Barber in her The Marlowe Papers, a novel-in-verse which was awarded the Desmond Elliott Prize in 2013."
 * Finally, although Upstart Crow may well have been "the most noted Shakespeare-sitcom in recent years", and has Marlowe as a major character in the story, it really has nothing at all to do with the Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship, does it? In Shakespeare in Love Marlowe at least gave Shakespeare the plot for Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter! Peter Farey (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't check "Further reading" very carefully, did I. Sorry about that.


 * Then I would expand "In fiction" by mentioning Z and W, and getting Bolt in there. As for UC, it has something to do with MT in that it uses MT as material (like Bolt and Barber), as noted in The Telegraph. It uses regular SAQ a bit too, but less. Elton wrote an article about it.


 * And if you have some sort of COI regarding Barber, I have no doubt you will not let that affect your editing ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Added Bolt. More about his book can be found in Shakespeare beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy . According to The Independent "This book will appeal most to those already well-versed in the lives of Marlowe and Shakespeare. Anyone else is likely to be mystified as to why Bolt has gone to all this trouble." IMO Bolt and Barber fits poorly under "Further reading", so I would prefer not having them in that section, it's like having Ruled Britannia in a Further reading section on William Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * [The below comment by Peter Farey was restored, moved, and refactored (indentation) by me. It may thus not reflect its author's intent. Please check with Peter directly if there's any question. --Xover (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)]
 * The problems of having an 'in fiction' section in the article about Christopher Marlowe himself have been discussed more than once, the latest I think being way back in the latter halves of 2013 and 2015. According to one contributor "Realistically, sections like this are like cancer. If you leave a little it just encourages everybody to put their favorite little factoid in it and it metastasizes. It is better to remove the cancer in its entirety. Otherwise you just simply have to live with a giant list of trivia that dwarfs the rest of the article."
 * At the time we nevertheless left it alone, and for a while I tried to ensure that any additions followed certain criteria such as that each item should be mainly about Christopher Marlowe, and that reasons for it being considered sufficiently notable should be included. On 11 Jan 2014 I had posted a revised list following these criteria which reduced the number of them to six. I managed to perform a 'policing' role until 30 December 2015, when the number had risen to eight, at which point personal circumstances meant that I could no longer keep such a watch on what was included. As of today I see that twenty items are now listed, many of which (I would submit) contain nothing at all of any value concerning Christopher Marlowe.
 * I am therefore strongly opposed to our laying ourselves open to having a similar problem with this article. Peter Farey (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem you describe is quite real, I've seen it myself, see for example and . You don't have to live with a giant list of trivia, but it will likely take pruning now and then, "laying ourselves open" if you will. An editor stated in this discussion Talk:Cain_and_Abel "I'd say, let the trivia sections grow indiscriminately, and then when they start looking too long, cut 'em by 2/3." That's one way, personally I like to make smaller cuts as I notice the need, but of course that only work when I notice it. What matters are the sources, just existing is not enough.


 * So, I think sections like these have their place, despite meriting the odd nuke. They can be quite WP-decent, like Cain_and_Abel, Moses, Otto_Skorzeny, Parasitism, Falstaff, A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream (might need some... directed bombing...), Puck_(A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream) etc.
 * I may very well start a William Shakespeare in fiction (or perhaps "Cultural depictions of WS") article someday, sources shouldn't be hard to find. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I grew out of defending the article as 'my baby' long ago! If you are going that way, you might like to consider an episode of New Tricks (Series 9, Episode 7 – Dead Poets) which was based entirely upon the Marlovian theory. Brian says: "Oh I'm a bloody fool! Docherty and Oswald are Marlowe and Shakespeare! I'm looking at the wrong poem. A lot of people think Marlowe faked his death and subsequently fed his verse to Shakespeare." But then I suppose it needs someone else to have pointed this out before it can be used? Peter Farey (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's how I see it, just existing takes us out of WP:PROPORTION... even quicker than usual :P Which is why I could only fume when Xover removed Ruled Britannia from Falstaff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I just realized that the removal of Ros Barber's book from the 'Marlovian publications' list (which in any case still has Zeigler, Watterson and Bolt) means that her publisher and ISBN number is no longer provided. I have therefore put it back (again!) and added notes in the text pointing to both the Bolt and Barber publications.Peter Farey (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As you wish. As I said above, I was going to remove Bolt as well, but either works. If I understand the article, Z and W are "Marlovian' publications" in a way the other two are not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I wonder why? I don't know whether you have read all four of them, but it seems to me that the main difference is between Zeigler and Barber on the one hand and Watterson and Bolt on the other. With each of the first two it is made very clear that it is a work of fiction, and the facts and reasoning behind the story are given in a separate preface and/or notes, accounting for about 7% of the total in each case. With Watterson and Bolt, however, it really is very difficult to know when reading it whether it is supposed to be fiction or not, and (in Bolt's case) whether the foot- or end-notes (14%?) are to be taken as factual or just as a part of the story. The only way in which Zeigler and Watterson "are 'Marlovian' publications in a way the other two are not" is that they got there first. Peter Farey (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have read none of them, my interest in Shakespeare-subjects is spotty and shallow. My reading was that the older ones were sort of fundamental Marlovian texts, while the later ones were more for fun. This discussion reminded me that I had Shakespeare beyond Doubt in my bookcase, so at least I'm reading that now (also Romeo and Juliet, my second Shakespeare-play). Perhaps I'll get the one with the ? in the title as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Fundamental Marlovian texts? Not really. The far more influential Calvin Hoffman insisted that he had known nothing of Zeigler or Webster's theories until he was twelve years into his research, and later led everyone a merry dance by being led to believe that Watterson's fictional 'Padua' scenario was genuine. Furthermore, if there were two which were "more for fun" it would be the ones by Watterson and Bolt rather than "the later ones". As for Shakespeare Beyond Doubt you may like to read Nicholl's chapter in conjunction with the review of it written by Ros Barber and me at .Peter Farey (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hoffman prize section
The last two statements in this section have been tagged as needing reference. Specifically, I contend we get rid of the last one entirely. There doesn't seem to be a way to verify that past opinion.

The statement about the principal prize size is more promising. However, all I could find through the UK charity registry is this source, Charity Ref, and it specifies income and expenditure but not the size of the trust.

Can anyone dig a better citation on this? I'm not really familiar with how financial disclosures for charity organizations work in the UK. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As the tagger, I could see something like "Shakespeare/Marlowe scholar such-and-such states that..." about influence, if such a statement exists. Otherwise, begone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll wait a little longer for comment and then wipe it out. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm afraid I must put my hand up to that one. The fact is that at the time I added that stuff I was under some pressure to to give the article a more NPOV, and the Hoffman Prize information, which I think is important to mention, did seem to be particularly critical of the inevitably Stratfordian judges' decisions. I had Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare and David Riggs's The World of Christopher Marlowe in mind, both of which had chapters which had started life as Hoffman prize-winning essays. A.D. Wraight's Shakespeare: New Evidnce was nothing more than an expanded version of an entry for the Hoffman prize too.
 * As for the amount, I know of only two mentions of the prize in "reliable sources". In his chapter in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (p.38), Charles Nicholl writes of "one half of the capital of the trust fund, an unspecified but very sizeable amount", and in his Shakespeare & Co. (p.101) Stanley Wells simply wrote that "Anyone proving the case was to win the jackpot."
 * However, having myself won a share of the essay prize both in 2007 and 2012 I know that the total prize money each time was £9000, and I have a copy of the original Trust Deed stipulating that it should consist of no less than 40% of the trust fund's income. So how large would the fund have to be to generate an annual income of £22,500? "Hundreds of thousands of pounds", right?
 * Chuck it out as original research if you like, but is the article really improved by being that fastidious? Peter Farey (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My knee-jerk reaction is yes, WP-style on WP. It is generally helpful for editors like me when WP:EXPERTs like you are involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to ask, are you the Peter Farey a book I have call "one of the more industrious and level-headed of current Marlovians"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Far be it for me to speak for others, but I have it on good authority that Peter here is both industrious, level-headed, and a Marlovian; so I'd say it's a distinct possibility. :) --Xover (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So even Stratfordians can get it right on occasion ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, perhaps one of you bardinators would consider adding something "Marlovian" to Henry Watterson? There's only a category, nothing telling the reader why. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Xover. Yes, that's Charles Nicholl's description of me. Unfortunately he then goes on to provide a summary of an argument of mine which is diametrically opposed to what I actually said! Peter Farey (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, pleased to meet you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just report the prize using the phrasing from Nicholl and from Wells that Peter gives above? We don't really need to know details of the fund or the prize here, it's too much detail. We need to know that the prize exists, its purpose, how it is handled (i.e. that it's judged by mainstream scholars), and whether it's large or small. It would be nice to be able to distinguish between a couple hundred thousand pounds and "a billion dollars" level of "large", but that's not really critical.Also, keep in mind that the King's School actually links to the Marlowe Society's web page about the prize (lending it "reliability" weight). If Peter has any kind of formal role in that page we can treat it as a self-published primary source from a subject matter expert. That is we can report that "this what Peter Farey and the Marlowe Society say about the prize". For stuff that's simple facts (not interpretative statements or novel synthesis) like a sum for a given prize purse, that should be entirely within the limits of WP:RS.It would even be possible, if we really needed, to cite an email from Peter about the size of his prize purse (and perhaps even his calculation about the total size of the fund). We might need to jump through some OTRS hoops and be very careful with how and what we use it for, but it can be done within policy.PS. On Hoffman's own hopes… It is self-evident that Hoffman wanted to promote the Marlovian theory and that the prize in practice doesn't do that. Putting the two facts together is synthesis, but not really all that novel. If need be we can simply juxtapose the two facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions (if so, we can't "lead them to the water", but we can give them the facts and not step over the bounds of policy). --Xover (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can use TMS to state that the annual prizes as of 2018 are around £9000, seems uncontroversial. Charles Nicholl seems to be using "the principal prize is equal to one half of the capital of the entire Trust Fund" from that page, so let's include that without speculating on size (until a source turns up). If TMS were to write "The principal prize is in 2018 estimated to..." we could use that too.


 * On the final sentence, it's partly implied in the preceding text. Can it be replaced with something like "Hoffman essays have appeared in (several) academic works, such as X, Y and Z"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Pleased to meet you too Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Yes, that looks like a good way to do it. I hadn't realized that the Marlowe Society had published the current value of the essay prize. Peter Farey (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Marlowe Papers
For the interested, I started this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Recently added WP:EL
Hello @Bascon, and welcome to a Wikipedia talkpage. Per your username, I assume the WP:EL:s you are adding like here are your own websites/channels, is that correct? Please don't per WP:COI. See also WP:ES, and please use edit summaries when you edit articles. Ping to @Xover and @Apaugasma, if you have an opinion on the recent edits. Other watchers, please comment if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)