Talk:The Second Shepherds' Play

Note
I've deleted the plot summary because it was taken word for word from another web site (http://www.montana.edu/metz/website/theatre/secondshepherds.htm).--Cassmus 07:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This page should include an analysis of the play. Anyone care to contribute? Vpw 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed the following text as being commentary (and thus original research):


 * ACTUALLY, there is a reason for the two stories, they are meant to be together. This is the story of the Apocolypse which would have been well recognized by a medieval audience. Mak is actually symbolic of the antichrist, his whole story is an echo of the biblical telling of the coming of the antichrist.  The following nativity is the story of Christ's second coming, hence this play coming near the end of the Wakefield cycle.************

Loganberry (Talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorship
I tried to work with the remarks by Palmer and Colletti, but the WP:RS just wasn't there. Both are respected scholars, but there isn't really much investigation into the identity of the Wakefield Master, and mentioning the hypothesis about the amateur historian is v much wp:Undue. Anyhow, such discussion would belong at Wakefield Master rather than in this article. DavidOaks (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)