Talk:The Tempest/Archive 1

Inspirations
The Tempest plays a prominent role in the recent computer game Indigo Prophecy and in the John Fowles novel, The Magus
 * I also remember seeing parallels to Link's Awakening, but maybe that was just me. --BDD 16:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I added in Themes and Tropes section instead of "Interpretations" though incorporating some of its ideas, as (a) the biggest part of that was about Prospero as Shakespeare, though it noted itself that that theory is discredited, and (b) there was some rather random stuff which, fine, was (mainly) valid, but not imperative to the play. Hopefully the ones I've put in cover the main ideas in the play; I realize there are lots of others.

I've also added in stuff in sources, and stuff about characters' names, as, well, someone else started it.

- May 07 2005 -

PS - I think the "Plot" section was (and post-me) still is badly written - can anyone make it sound better?

I just don't see any reason to include this - and the assertion that Shakespeare attempted to achieve classical unity is both a piece of conjecture and not very likely. "and is the only one in which he more-or-less-successfully attempts to abide by the prescribed "unities" of classical drama. Unity of place is achieved by setting the play on a remote island, and unity of time by having all the action take place within the space of a few hours"

- 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey... Seems to be a problem with this page (I'm guessing wikispam); the image in the 'plot' section seems to be a photo of five girls, not "Ferdinand and Miranda, from The Tempest, Act V, Edward Reginald Frampton (British, 1870-1923).". Had a look for a previous image, but I can't see one. Afraid wiki formatting isn't really my strong point, though, so I don't really know what to do about it... Thought I ought to mention it, though. --JTA 11:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's Loreena McKennitt, not McKinnitt. http://www.quinlanroad.com/ 68.237.187.37 07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing both the current (December 11, 2007) page and the older version, I have to ask if the plot summary is NPOV. I'm only an undergrad, so I thought I'd ask nicely, in case I was mistaken. Reading the plot summary, I think a few things are opinionated, and not explicitly or implicitly derived from the play, such as Caliban being a deformed monster. He is only a monster in the view of Prospero, who is the narrator of sorts. It's that same as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, in that the creation may or may not be a monster, and only Victor Frankenstein can tell you his opinion of the creation. Otherwise, the summary just seems pro-Prospero, if that's a position, but not really NPOV. - Kim F (no account), December 11, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.161.200 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unity of action
Hey, this is my first post so please bear with me. The matter of whether Shakespeare did or did not attempt a play which conformed to the principles of unity aside, it is necessary to rewrite the section regarding unity of action, as it is a matter of contention whether it is precisely observed. Joseph Warton, for example in "Remarks on the Creation of Character" wrote that "The action is one, great, and entire, the restoration of Prospero to his dukedom" ("Remarks on the Creation of Character" in "The Tempest: A Casebook ed. D. J. Palmer p. 42 - 47) Although such an interpretation may be challenged, it is certainly true that Prospero is responsible for most of the action of the play, except, as Middleton Murry noted "There is but one accident in the Tempest, the accident which brings the ship to the island" ("Shakespeare's Dream" in "The Tempest: A Casebook ed. D. J. Palmer p. 109 - 119). I would be grateful if somebody could resolve this. Dondavidoff 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, does 'unity of action' have to mean one person causing everything? I thought it simply meant that there shouldn't be irrelevant subplots. Correct me if I'm wrong. By the way, you can sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ). The Singing Badger 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey. You're right, unity of action does not mean it has to all be the cause of one person, but in the context of "The Tempest" this ensures it. All the subplots are created by Prospero's methodical scattering of the various shipwrecked characters where he wants them and with who he wishes, such as, for example, his allowing Ferdinand to be the first to meet Miranda. Because of this, it could be argued that there are NO subplots, and that is why there is an adherence to the unity of action. Oh, and thanks for the help with the tildes! Dondavidoff 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK cool, but I don't see why the accidental arrival of the ship at the island conflicts with this; it's related to the story of Prospero, so it doesn't break the unity of action. Right? The Singing Badger 20:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. The article just needs to be changed to how the unity of action is adhered to. Dondavidoff 10:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that 'The Tempest' is "the worst play of them all" is absolutely inappropriate to a junior high school essay on the play, let alone an encyclopedia article. Not only is it a statement of opinion, but it also ignores the fact that there are several other plays which are (arguably, of course) much more worthy of the 'honor.' I cannot claim to be a Shakespearean scholar, but I believe that such a sweepingly negative critique of this play would not be supported by the relevent literature, at least not so long as 'Timon of Athens' is still around, or whichever one it is where people are cooked and eaten. --PurpleChez 20 July 2006

The Name Ariel / Shakespere's Authorship
In The "Article" Section it is written, "Ariel, an airy spirit The name is certainly suggestive of the "air" element, directly opposing the character to Caliban, who is called "thou earth" by Prospero. In Hebrew the name means "lion of God" - it is therefore interesting that Ariel's voice is once mistaken for the "roar of lions. Ariel's name is indeed not mistaken for the roar of lions, this is merely a quick thinking excuse made by Antonio and Sebastian who are caught standing above Gonzalo and Alonso with their swords drawn about to kill them."

Now listen. I do not know what was in Shakespere's head. I can only assume he was honoring REAL MAGICIANS somehow by including a REAL AIR CREATURE in his fantasy story. However, I assure you, the REAL ARIEL could never get caught in a tree. :-) The name Ariel is NOT "suggestive" of air just because it sounds like the english word air. I see where you might get that idea however. The name Ariel is-

1.) In Ceremonial Magic seen as The Angel of the Element AIR - See Alester Crowley's book "777" page 29 col. 1 in the appendix "Sepher Sephiroth" num. 242 in the back of the book.

2.) Symbolic name for Israel and Jerusalem. See the Bible Isaiah 29: (King James Version)

As you have mentioned-

3.) The Hebrew Word for "Lion of God" See: Abingdon's STRONG'S Exaustive Concordance of the Bible, in the back in the section HEBREW AND CHALDEE DICTIONARY, page 16, col. 3, num. 739 and 740

Also, whenever you have a Hebrew name ending in "EL" it gererally signifies the name of a significant angel.

It may not belong on this page but I thought I would add-

Also. There is no such person as William Shakespere the famous author. There were several famous people in a writer's guild named with the pen name of "Shakespere" with 1. William Shakspere, the actor from Stratford, 2.Christopher Marlowe, 3. Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, 4. William Stanley, the Earl of Derby, 5. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, and 6. Roger Manners, the Earl of Rutland.

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/evidence.htm

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/guide.htm

http://home.att.net/~tleary/

http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/outline.html

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/hidncode.htm

http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/authorship/authorship_bacon_marlowe_stanely.htm

http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbivens/shakespeare/

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/bacon_francis.html

http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Philosophers/Bacon__Sir_Francis__1561_1626_/

http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/francis-bacon.htm

then there is this view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_authorship

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bacpenl.html

--E Petrone 12:47, 18 Nov 2006 (EST)


 * Oh good. The "Shakespeare Authorship" debate again. I'll not get mixed into that one. Nor yet the "real magicians" thing.


 * One thing from your interesting comments on the name "Ariel"


 * "The name Ariel is NOT 'suggestive' of air just because it sounds like the english word air."


 * Isn't that the point though? Names can be "suggestive" even if they don't actually mean what they sound like. Yes, Ariel means all those things you said, but to an english-speaking audience you can't escape the fact that it's a homophone for "Aerial" meaning "of the air". Bill Shakespeare - or whoever you think wrote the play/s - would have been aware of that (Hmm. Was "Aerial" a word in Shakespeare's day? It's till got the sound "air" in it - and WS definitely uses phrases like "Airy spirits").

Brickie 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Caliban
I removed (under the etymology of Caliban) the statement that Caliban is 'black' because Sycorax was an African. It fails to mention that Sycorax was a Tunisian and therefore, not likely to be black.

-I notice that somebody, without a reference, has claimed Cannibal and Caribbean to derive from the same root. I doubt it. Does anyone have an authority?

-Actually, i wondered if stating he is "a deformed monster" is necessarily true. He is seen as a monster because of the colonial attitude towards black people at the time. a post-colonial reading of the play might argue that he is just an ordinary looking black person, perceived as monstrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.101.11 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ariel
Have deleted reference to Ariel's voice being likened to a lion's--the text contained both the assertion of this and then the denial of it, stating that the lion reference was merely an excuse by the blackguards for why their swords are drawn. No sense contradicting each other in the article's text. User:Snyrt

Shakespeare Paper?
The Tempest is currently (2006)the Shakespeare paper for the SATS.

What exactly is this saying? Is it referring to these SATs? And what the heck does Shakespeare paper mean? Google doesn't seem to help, and this edit seems pointless. TK-925 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also find this sentence quite irrelevant to the general theme, content, and style of the article. However, as I have significant experience with SATs, I can venture to say that this line means that The Tempest is the Shakespeare paper (that is, document) that will be the basis from which test material may be derived. It may be part of a list of books that can provide an essay prompt or literature comprehension question. This sentence most likely refers to the SAT II: Literature Exam. LifeScience 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seemed irrelevant and possibly inaccurate, so I got rid of it. TK-925 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tempest is what the 2007 SATS shakespeare paper will be based on, this is the first eyar it has been, it wans't in 2006. What that actually means is that pupils will have to write an essay in response to one question about the play. I can tell you this for sure because I'll be doing it tomorrow. I'll leave whther it is relevant enough for inclsuion ni the aritcle up to more experienced people. 84.70.194.122 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)kieran84.70.194.122 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Map?
I have just finished reading the script for the play and I noticed that there were many geographical references in it. I think it would be great if someone could find a map of the island featured in the tempest and post it on the article.

It's an imaginary island somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea.

Chronology
I have rewritten the chronology section to give a little more emphasis to the conventional scholarly position that the play was written between 1609 and 1611. To keep it as NPOV as possible, I have not deleted any of the Oxfordian "evidence," but rather placed it later in the section. I was tempted to delete the information completely, but decided that other viewpoints (no matter how unsubstantiated) deserve a place on the article. I also cited a reference for the traditional dating and included an external link to the excellent "Shakespeare Authorship" web site.--Cassmus 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cassmus,

I suggest that for the time being we do our best to preserve alternative views of chronology on this entry. New evidence forthcoming in mainstream Shakespearean journals will strongly bolster the "Oxfordian" contention of an early date for the play. In the meantime, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The entry should clearly state both mainstream and -- where credible -- alternative perspectives. --BenJonson 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mess of an article since April 25, 2007
Between vandalism and attempted rewrites, this article seems to have lost a great deal of content between April 25 and May 8, 2007. This version seems okay, but there may be some valid content added later. If an editor knowledgeable in the subject matter would like to step in with some clean-up, it would be welcomed. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! Somebody said, in the character description of Caliban, "- given looser, 17th century spelling- ..." I agree with you about needing to add stuff back in and what not. --Forgot my login-- 15:14, 30 May 2007 (PST)

Dating of The Tempest
First I'd like to offer some new evidence with respect to the dating of The Tempest. It's an apparent topical allusion. In 1609, there was a court rumour that the King's first cousin Arabella Stuart was intending to marry Stephano Janiculo, a man of dubious character who was masquerading as the Prince of Moldavia (see Riggs, David, Ben Jonson, A Life, Harvard University Press: 1989, p.156). Ben Jonson used this as a topical allusion in Act 5, Scene 3 of Epicoene (1610): "... the Prince of Moldavia, and his mistris, mistris Epicoene". So it was a big talking point. Of course, the two characters Stephano and Trinculo (which appear to be drawn from Stephano Janiculo's name) also have dubious intent in The Tempest in plotting to kill Prospero, with Stephano elevating himself to king of the island, which he recognises as a position above his station. So there is evidence that this was a topical allusion inserted in The Tempest after 1609.


 * You state that "there is evidence that this was a topical allusion inserted in the Tempest after 1609" -- but the only evidence you offer is your theory of a connection between the two sets of names, which is hardly enough to overcome the threshold of evidence required to substantiate the theory. The name Trinculo is based on the German word for drink, as has long be recognized. Shakespeare makes use of the pun in the play.Riggs is a good scholar, but to me the interpretation is strained.--BenJonson 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare the author was partial to topical allusions. In Love's Labour's Lost, the character Moth refers to the Nashe-Harvey controversy. In Act 5, Scene 1, Costard calls Moth ‘thou halfpenny purse of wit, thou pigeon-egg of discretion’. This seems to be a reference to the Nashe-Harvey controversy, an account of which may be found in The Works of Thomas Nashe, Vol. 5 (1910) by R. B. McKerrow. Nashe had already published Pierce [purse] Penilesse (1592) by this time containing an attack on Richard Harvey after Harvey’s abuse of him in Theological Discourse of the Lamb of God (1590). In response, his brother Gabriel Harvey’s invective in Pierce’s Supererogation (1593) labels Thomas Nashe ‘a young man of the greenest springe, as beardless in judgement as in face, and as Peniless in wit as in purse’ with the suggestion that he might next ‘publish Nashe’s Penniworth of Discretion’. Did Shakespeare intend Moth to be an anagram of Thom[as Nashe]?


 * True, but the evidence for this particular topical allusion in LLL is convincing enough to be all but conclusive. It has a long paper trail in the scholarship on the play, going back at least to John Dover Wilson's edition. Your pet theory has no paper trail, and your argument is really little more than an assertion.--BenJonson 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the statement in this article's Sources that "In addition, Oxfordian scholars point to new evidence [1] that seems to confirm Eden and Erasmus as primary sources instead of the "Strachey" report." Whoever has written this has made an incorrect deduction from the evidence. The parallels in the Strachey letter are equally as good as in the Eden and Erasmus sources.


 * This statement would seem to indicate that you have not read the relevant scholarship on this point, let alone studied the original sources. I refer you to Kositsky and Stritmatter, in the Nov. 2007 issue of The Review of English Studies. This article conclusively shows that Shakespeare cannot have relied on Strachey, because Strachey's manuscript, published only in 1625, cannot have been completed until around 1612. On the relative strength of the alleged parallels in Strachey vrs. those found in Eden and, for that matter, Erasmus, please see the online article here:http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm. The evidence presented in this forum is also forthcoming in a major academic journal, but as the details are not yet confirmed I will state no particulars. The evidence contained in the online tables should be sufficient to show that you are entirely mistaken in these assertions. --BenJonson 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter sources do not seem "to confirm" anything. They simply produce another possibility. The question is, how do we decide between these sources. I think that the above topical allusion favours the Strachey letter and since the first known performance of The Tempest was before King James in 1611 and the Virginia Colony (from where the Strachey letter originated in 1610)


 * Puzzle Master, there is no evidence at all that the letter ever passed through the hands of the Virginia Company. It is true that for a brief time, Strachey was the secretary of the Colony. However, the assertation that a provenance chain can directly connect the "letter" (over 23,000 words in length) to the Company is an instance of sloppy assertion without foundation in fact.--BenJonson 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

was a project close to James's heart then I would be inclined towards the topical allusions of the Strachey letter being of greater interest to James than the Eden and Erasmus sources. These latter sources only provide an alternative possibility. (Puzzle Master 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC))


 * It will be clearly demonstrated in an article forthcoming in a major Shakespearean journal (details will be provided within a few weeks or months at most) that Shakespeare's play was known at least by 1603. For now it would be best not to alter the main wiki page, since this information has not been made public. But this is an advance notice to all, that eventually the wording of the article will have to be changed to reflect this new evidence. In the meantime, it would be foolhardy and fruitless to try to edit out the minimal information already contained in the article to the effect that the play's date of composition is contested. In point of fact, a date as early as 1603-4 was proposed during the 19th century and is no invention of the "Oxfordians."--BenJonson 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle Master,

Have you actually read Eden and Erasmus? Not to mention Ariosto, who is also a much richer source than Strachey? In fact, have you even read Strachey? On your website, you refer to True Reportory as a "pamphlet," but the text is close to 24,000 words long. I think if you read the texts, you'd soon realize which ones Shakespeare was more likely to use for Tempest. Many of the "parallels" usually attributed to Strachey, by the way, were copied by him from the earlier sources, sometimes almost verbatim. Mizelmouse 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reponse to BenJonson. Ah, but there is another point of connection between The Tempest characters and Stephano Janiculo.


 * Stephano. Monster, I will kill this man [Prospero]: his daughter and I
 * will be king and queen ... (III.ii.104-5)

Well, that pretty much settles it, doesn't it? --BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Caliban addresses Stephano with "Prithee, my King, be quiet" (IV.i.215), and Prospero engages Stephano with


 * Prospero. You'ld be King o' the isle, sirrah?
 * Stephano. I should have been a sore one, then. (V.i.287-8)

So, even though Prospero is not already a king, Stephano awards himself the position of king of the island, an aristocratic position that Trinculo recognises is above his station:


 * Trinculo. ... They say there's but five upon this island: we are three of them; if th'other two be brained like us, the state totters. (II.ii.4-6)

So there is a parallel here with Stephano Janiculo who awarded himself the title Prince of Moldavia, a position that he knew he was not entitled to. Stephano and Trinculo are also mentioned together in one sentence which would have assisted the audience in getting the allusion.


 * Trinculo. Stephano! If thou beest Stephano, touch me, and speak to me; for I am Trinculo ... (II.ii.101-102)

So the evidence is as follows:


 * (1) Stephano and Trinculo appear together as a double act.
 * (2) Stephano assumes an aristocratic position which he recognises to be above his station.
 * (3) Shakespeare was capable of using topical allusions.
 * (4) Ben Jonson had used it as a topical allusion in 1610 (i.e. it was known in dramatist circles).
 * (5) The Tempest was performed before King James in 1611 in whose court Stephano Janiculo had appeared two years earlier.
 * (6) It would not have worked as an allusion had the two names not appeared in a speech together (but they do).


 * Wow. Write that up for PMLA.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So I disagree that this is a strained interpretation, I think it is a plausible one, and I think it should stay in the article.

I notice that you spend all your time defending Oxford ...


 * Are you on drugs? I spend most of my time, over the summer months, watching television or backpacking. I haven't even mentioned Oxford in this disucssion -- you're the one who brought up this particular red herring, apparently to deflect attention away from the weakness of your argument.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

mainly against the post-1604 dating problem.


 * Well you asked for it, so here goes: as anyone who has read Looney (from what you have written, it seems that you have only the vaguest understanding of the Oxford case) realizes, the real problem is not the "post-1604 dating problem," which is largely founded on a history of conjecture about when the plays may have been written, but the "post-1604 cessation of new play quartos" problem, which is founded in fact.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the huge effort you expend on this is itself recognition of the weakness of his case.


 * To me, your personal attacks, based on claims that you can't possibly substantiate and which are untrue, is evidence that you need another hobby.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also a fruitless exercise because even if you could show that all the plays pre-dated 1604 this would still not substantiate the case for Oxford.


 * Your boldness in arguing for the irrelevancy of all positions that are contrary to your own is really quite impressive, dude. Obviously you are the Master of all matters pertaining to this discussion, and no one else can say a word without obtaining not merely your disapproval, but your condescension.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the evidence for Oxford relies on interpreting certain plays (e.g. Hamlet) as autobiographical. Why are they necessarily so? Even if a play could be demonstrated to be based on his circumstances, what precludes another dramatist from writing about him? And what motive would be strong enough for Oxford to desire concealment. It is not as if there was much for him to lose.


 * As far as I can see, your entire approach to this question rests of a set of spuriously concluded, ad hoc positions which, if put in a room together and asked to hold a discussion, would all emerge with black eyes or worse. --BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are scientifically


 * What are your scientific credentials? I hold a Masters Degree in Anthropology and am more than a little conversant with the principles of population biology and ecology as well as both cultural and physical anthropology.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

rather than religiously interested in the authorship question


 * What? Let me ask again: are you on drugs? How dare you publicly categorize my interest in the authorship question, without qualification, as "religious"?  What is that category based on- the fact that I wrote a PhD dissertation on Shakespeare's religious belief?  I've written many things about Shakespeare, and most of them have little to do with religion. --BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

then why are you not engaged in surveying the whole picture, assimilating all the evidence for all the candidates?


 * I've been doing that for twenty years. You obviously don't know this, but I'm much more familiar with the positive evidence (as opposed to the mountains of Baconian claptrap) for Bacon's authorship, than you are of that supporting Oxford. I don't think you're in any position to lecture me.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can assist here.


 * Puleeze. Get a little humility.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bacon had a far greater reputation for learning than Oxford. Indeed Ben Jonson described him as "one of the greatest men ... that had been in many ages ... so that he may be named, and stand as the mark ... of our language" (see Jonson, Ben, Timber: Or Discoveries, Cassell: 1641, p.60-1). Not Oxford, but Bacon, and Jonson should know! Bacon was also close to the first known performance of The Comedy of Errors at Gray's Inn in 1594-5 and his letters show that he controlled the Gray's Inn players who performed it (and there is real documentary evidence of a connection here e.g. see Bland, Desmond, Gesta Grayorum, Liverpool University Press, 1968).


 * This is a talk page on The Tempest, dude. Your comments about Bacon are inappropriate here. Please don't continue this discussion here.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If one wishes to be scientific one must not be selective with the evidence, ignoring that which is unfavourable to one's favourite candidate. At least Shakspere has his name on much of the work ... but where is the hard evidence that connects Oxford to any Shakespeare play?


 * Quite a bit. Do some research. Get thee to a library. While you're at it, re-examine your own fetishitic dependence on categories like "hard evidence." How will you define this term in order to keep in the bits you want and exclude all the others. A hard study, I know, but one you must undertake if you are to prevail.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The sum of the research for the non-esoteric Baconian theory can be obtained as a free download here (link deleted because it was causing a spam filter to pop up and block comments on this page). As a researcher, I would expect you to want to check out the facts for an alternative candidate. However, there would be no point reading it with filtered spectacles on. The facts would need to be assessed on their own merit, not according to whether they agreed with the Oxfordian theory.


 * You're really full of yourself, aren't you?--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally here's a question that should determine how scientific your approach is. If you could find evidence that provided better support for another candidate would you change your view?


 * Yes I would. I've been looking for it for nearly twenty years. Based on the arrogant condescenion of your remarks, I would guess that you are about as likely to provide that as you are to convince third party readers that you are actually intending to discuss the topic of this entry, the date of the Tempest, without reference to your own pet theories.--BenJonson 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Puzzle Master 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Puzzle Master,

A few points: The character Janiculo appears in Patient Grissel, published in 1603. Moldavia appears in Knight of the Burning Pestle, written before or around 1607. Do you accept these as references to Stefano Janiculo? Even if they're possibles, your dating argument is demolished. I don't believe that Stephano and Trinculo are meant to remind us of Stefano Janiculo in any case; rather they are reminiscent of kings and drinking, both thematically important in Tempest. But even if they are also meant to reference SJ, it hardly dates the play to 1607 or later. Names (and even titles of plays) were changed from time to time, as I'm sure you know, and it would be easy to change the names of these characters to make the play seem more current in 1611. How early was the play, and why could it not have used Strachey as a source? Roger Stritmatter and I provide plenty of positive evidence that the play was alluded to in several other works by 1603 at the latest. Articles on this subject will be published later this year, and will be far stronger than a single name dropped into a discussion. We've been working on these papers for several years, and they've been accepted by orthodox journals.

By the way, I'm not sure how you went from a discussion on dating Tempest to one on authorship. This isn't an authorship page and so such material is unnecessary and rather unwelcome. Are you suggesting one should only accept evidence if it doesn't conflict with one's own authorship theories? That would be such a shame. Mizelmouse 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Response. It is telling that BenJonson has to resort to personal abuse to express his disappointment at my finding a good counter to the 1604 argument. An impartial observer will surely recognise that the Stephano Janiculo idea (1609), the Strachey letter (1610), and the first (verifiable) known performance of The Tempest (1611), together being within an interval of two years, weigh the probability against pre-1604 dating. I notice that BenJonson refuses even to accept the possibility that the Janiculo allusion is credible. This underlines my assertion that his own Oxfordian theory is a belief system and is unscientific. For a theory to be scientific, one needs to admit the possibility that counter evidence exists. It is clear that BenJonson rejects the possibility of any evidence that counters his own views. This perfectly illustrates my point about a religious/non-scientific adherence to the Oxfordian theory where psychological motives play a bigger part than logical ones. (Puzzle Master 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Puzzlemaster, you seem to want every editor to approach their work here on WP the same way you do. If they don't they are labled "religious" in terms of their academic beliefs. You insist that every editor read up and become an expert on Bacon and if they don't you devalue any good work that may have to offer. Maybe there are some editors, me included, that simply want to bring our own expertise to the table.  Have you ever considered that?  Quite frankly, I do not have the time nor the inclination to become an expert on all things related to WS.  I have an interest in the Oxford candidacy and I have an interest in the theatre.  I have source books to back up these interests and provide references for any statements that I wish to contribute. However, this does not imply or even suggest the kind of religious zealotry that you seem to be bent on accusing those who disagree with you.
 * BTW - no first performances are known of any of the plays.
 * Also, due to possible revisions and an oft-broken "chain of evidence", using topical allusions to date the plays is highly problematic. And, If Janiculo was indeed alluded to as early as 1603, as Mizelmouse maintains above, then you need to reaccess your own argument, which was just destroyed. In light of this, are you willing to reconsider this particular argument? Also - have you a reliable source for you theory - or is it OR, which makes it pointless (and unusable) on WP anyway?Smatprt 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle Master,

With regard to the following:

"An impartial observer will surely recognise that the Stephano Janiculo idea (1609), the Strachey letter (1610), and the first (verifiable) known performance of The Tempest (1611), together being within an interval of two years, weigh the probability against pre-1604 dating..."

I must protest. The Stefano Janiculo "idea" was around in 1607. Knowledge of the man himself might have been around much earlier. I haven't researched it so I don't know. Do you? You should if you're putting his name forward as a source. The Strachey "letter" was published in 1625, after the First Folio, and it's impossible to know when it was completed, although our evidence points to 1612. Roger and I have often theorised that it's perhaps a later, longer, literary version of an earlier letter, and this may turn out to be true. The Tempest's first performance date is unknown, as the records are so incomplete. One thing we have discovered, however, is that although the play's first RECORDED performance took place at Hallowmas 1611, the play is more likely an occasional play written for Shrovetide. There is plenty of evidence for this in the text.

If our evidence is strong enough to demonstrate that there are specific allusions to Tempest in at least four other earlier works, all the Janiculos, Stracheys, and recorded performances in the world will make no difference. You simply can't put a similar but not even identical name against much healthier evidence. In addition to the allusions in other works and the probability Tempest was a Shrovetide "revelry," there's very little in Strachey that's not in two earlier, richer, widely published, and more famous texts previously acknowledged as Shakespeare sources by many orthodox scholars.

Tempest might have been restaged in 1611, with good reason, but when all the evidence is out there, I believe it will again be thought of as having been written and performed much earlier. I'm interested that you're so interested in the subject. I ask you again as I did in my first response: Have you actually read Strachey, Eden, Ariosto, and Erasmus, etc? I don't see how you can properly counter our evidence unless you've slogged through our sources yourself.

By the way, what do you think of our table, still in a rough stage as I'm having difficulty fitting in all the evidence:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm

Mizelmouse 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence Mr Smatprt and Ms Mizelmouse but I'm saving my pen for my playmate BenJonson. I find his presumed superiority incredibly amusing and I just love the way he plants his flag of indignation on the moral high ground with one hand, while dishing out personal abuse with the other. He might not be the brightest of buttons but he's great material for a satirist! (Puzzle Master 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

It is duly noted that by answering in this way, you manage to avoid discussing the evidence. Mizelmouse 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is interesting, is it not? It would appear that Puzzle Master has no answer to these incisive comments by Mizelmouse and Smatprt. --BenJonson (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the final paragraph of the dating section. It removed Mark Anderson from the references, since he is a secondary source on the subject of Stritmatter and Kositsky's work. It is better to go straight to what the RES article says, rather than play a game of telephone with sources. I therefore also eliminated those parts of Anderson's discussion which have not yet appeared in peer reviewed journals, and focused on the argument Stritmatter and Kositsky make in the RES article. Finally, I managed to mention a critical fact -- namely the first date of performance of the Tempest(could that be important? *naw*). I would like also to add a couple more names to complete the scholarship on the date of the Tempest in the early 21st century -- for scholars as diverse as Kinney, Gurr, Lindley, and McCarthy have questioned the reliance on the Strachey narrative or otherwise raised the prospect of a much earlier date for the play in one form or another. I hope everyone approves of the changes. If not, I'm sure you'll tell us about it. :) --71.206.32.80 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Themes
Here's a link to source the themes: sparknotes.--SidiLemine 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I learned the hard way in my early days at wikipedia--sparknotes is not a good or trusted reference. Bardofcornish (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Authorship battleground
Apparently this page has become a battleground for authorship advocates of several stripes. It needs a good wringing and editing to restore a neutral POV. Making up references, such as claiming Kenneth Muir "cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between The Tempest and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta" is flat-out lying.Tom Reedy 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just proposed that this article become the Shakespeare project's new collaboration, since Hamlet has passed GA and is on its way to FA status. See the project talk page. Wrad 00:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing I propose is a consistent standard for references. I would think this had already been hashed out, but apparently not. Not only what is acceptable, but the form of the references.Tom Reedy 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been hashed out, people just aren't following it. I think the best example of how it should be done can be found on the Hamlet page. Wrad 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, that is a beautiful set up! Luckily this page has not been so developed that it would be a great chore to format all the refs like that.Tom Reedy 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AndyJones/The Tempest
I've come along to join this collaboration, and as with all previous ones I will start at the bottom of the article and work on Performance History, Screen Performances and Adaptations. Note that I have userfied the existing laundry list of performances, adaptations and pop-culture references and they can be found here if anyone would like to refer to them. AndyJones 12:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we agreed, please, that this article does NOT need a separate The Tempest on screen article, unless and until the summary style rules would require us to break it out? I'll be drafting on the basis that films are going in this article. AndyJones 12:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on a separate article; whatever you decide. I plan to do a balanced write up on Tempest sources, but I won't have the time until after Dec. 14, because school doesn't let out until then.Tom Reedy 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Strachey report: Objection
Why does the article say that the Strachey report "circulated in manuscript"? Stanley Wells says so in his Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, p.470. How does he know this? There is an argument that it wasn't, as follows.

There is evidence that the murderous behaviour of the native Indians was unknown prior to Sir Thomas Gates setting out for Jamestown on 10 May 1609. Item 18 of the Virginia Council’s Instruccions Orders and Constituccions … To Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia dated May 1610 states that:
 * The second enemy is the natives who can no way hurte you but by fire or by destroyinge your catle, or hinderinge your workes

There is no mention of the behaviour that Strachey subsequently reported in his letter, that
 * … the Indians killed as fast without, if our men stirred but beyond the bounds of their blockhouse, as famine and pestilence did within.

Neither could the Virginia Council have anticipated Strachey’s report about how much the settlers wanted to leave the colony after Gates finally reached them from Bermuda:
 * it pleased our governor to make a speech unto the company … if he should not find it possible and easy to supply them with something from the country by the endeavours of his able men, he would make ready and transport them all into their native country … at which there was a … shout of joy

The men actually left the colony, and it was only the intervention of English supply ships that encouraged them to turn back. The aim of the Virginia Company was to attract both new investment and new settlers and it appears inconceivable that the central committee of the Council would have sanctioned circulation of this manuscript, least of all to an outsider such as Shakspere whose business was public. The fact that he might have known members of the Council fails to dilute this point. That secrecy was indeed an issue is exemplified by Item 27 of the governing Council’s instructions to Gates:
 * You must take especial care what relacions [accounts] come into England and what lettres are written and that all thinges of that nature may be boxed up and sealed and sent to first of [sic] the Council here, … and that at the arrivall and retourne of every shippinge you endeavour to knowe all the particular passages and informacions given on both sides and to advise us accordingly.

The Council must have realized that, by word of mouth, details of the murder and low morale on the colony would get back to England so they made no attempt to conceal it. Instead they put out a reinterpretation of the facts. When A True Declaration of the state of the Colony in Virginia with a confutation of such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise was published it placed full responsibility for the debacle with the settlers:
 * Our mutinous loiterers would not sow with providence … An incredible example of their idleness is the report of Sir Thomas Gates, who affirmeth that after coming thither he hath seen some of them eat their fish raw rather than they would go a stone’s cast to fetch wood and dress it.

The author of this admonishment must have been fully aware of Strachey’s account that when the men gathered strawberries or fetched fresh water, the Indians:
 * would assault and charge with their bows and arrows, in which manner they killed many of our men.

He must also have anticipated that this last fact had already been made public because he again blamed the settlers:
 * They created the Indians our implacable enemies by some violence they had offered;

The True Declaration reports the slaughter of some 30 settlers and although admitting that “they were cruelly murdered and massacred” it is framed as the response of a provoked tribe of Indians who were “boiling with desire of revenge”. It concludes by listing in glowing terms the abundance of trees, fish, and minerals on the colony evidently designed to encourage new investment and colonists. If the Council were so keen to attribute blame to the settlers when the Strachey letter clearly places it with the Indians then they would have almost certainly kept the Strachey letter restricted.

Now I ask a question: Does "being an academic" necessarily mean "done the requisite research"? (Puzzle Master 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
 * All kinds of arguments can be made that it wasn't circulated, and an equal number of them can be made that it was, but the scholastic consensus at the moment (and that is what this article should reflect; when it changes, the article will change) is that it did circulate somewhat in MS, because that same consensus accepts the letter as a source for The Tempest. We have two versions of the Strachey letter, which means it must have gone to at least more than one person. And if the Virginia Company rules against circulating information outside company channels was so effective, why then did they feel it necessary to title the pamphlet A True Declaration of the estate of the Colony in Virginia, with a confutation of such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise? The truth is that information leaked from the beginning, and refuting "such scandelous reports" (which were by and large true) was a theme of Viginia colonial literature from the beginning until long past the dissolution of the company.
 * As far as your rhetorical question, academics build on research done in the past. It is not necessary to re-invent the wheel every time a new automobile is designed, although previous work should be checked before constructing too large an edifice on a shaky foundation.Tom Reedy 05:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well don't leave me in suspense! What are the arguments that it was circulated?! (Enjoyed the sneaky "shaky foundation" swipe - maybe you need to study the argument more carefully!) You're surprised the Strachey letter went to more than one person? Richard Hakluyt was one, a man on the Virginia Council. But there were over 50 people mentioned on the 2nd Virginia Charter! If one of those had a copy, that wouldn't constitute circulation to a person outside the Virginia Company (like Shakspere). The pamphlet you mention appears to have been written to quell word-of-mouth rumour. Why would the Virginia Council circulate the Strachey letter to outsiders then write a pamphlet to counter it?! That's illogical! (Puzzle Master 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I have no idea why you suppose my comment "shaky foundation" was aimed at you. I was expressing my opinion that we should not assume too much, but should re-check the research and sources of every scholar, including established ones. And if you had as much grasp of the subject as you seem to think you do, you would know that there was more than "word or mouth" rumor. I can think of two pamphlets right off the top of my head that complained of the influence of the theatre. Ben Jonson's Eastward Ho was one popular play that satirized the efforts to colonize Virginia.
 * Nobody is claiming the Virginia Company circulated the letter to the public; in fact, the very opposite is true. But we have several accounts of letters being sent to England outside of the channels controlled by the company, and there are orders from the company to the governor to clamp down on them. And I explained the reasoning for the claim that it was circulated; it is similar to the arguments for other sources of Shakespeare's plays, viz.: (a)A Shakespeare play closely follows a particular work, (b) therefore the work was read by Shakespeare. Same way with the Tempest.
 * On another note, your tone ill-behooves your efforts at debate. There is no cause to be uncivil.Tom Reedy 15:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find your quotation of the instructions to Gates above selective and self-serving. You write "There is evidence that the murderous behaviour of the native Indians was unknown prior to Sir Thomas Gates setting out for Jamestown on 10 May 1609. Item 18 of the Virginia Council’s Instruccions Orders and Constituccions … To Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia dated May 1610 states that: The second enemy is the natives who can no way hurte you but by fire or by destroyinge your catle, or hinderinge your workes."
 * But if you read the entire document you find "For Powhaton and his Weroances it is Clere even to reason beside our experience that he loued not our neighborhood and therefore you may no way trust him, but if you finde it not best to make him yor prisoner yet you must make him yor tributary," and also referred to the "slaughter of Powhaton of Roanocke, vppon the first arriuall of our Colonie." So your cliam that "the murderous behaviour of the native Indians was unknown prior to Sir Thomas Gates setting out for Jamestown on 10 May 1609" is demonstrably false. The dangers of the Indians were no surprise to the Virginia Company council.Tom Reedy 13:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I grant that my expression is inexact, but the point is that when Gates set off, it was not expected that the natives would have murderous intent towards the new incumbents "the natives who can no way hurte you", whatever their previous behaviour. The most pertinent part of this document though is Item 27 (which I've already quoted above) about what should be done with letters. You don't refer to this, but it makes no difference to me that you accuse me of being "selective and self serving" when this is precisely your behaviour. It makes no difference to me because I know that I have a sound argument! (Puzzle Master 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * To quote myself: "The truth is that information leaked from the beginning, and refuting "such scandelous reports" (which were by and large true) was a theme of Viginia colonial literature from the beginning until long past the dissolution of the company." And again: "But we have several accounts of letters being sent to England outside of the channels controlled by the company, and there are orders from the company to the governor to clamp down on them." I believe that addresses your argument, unless you believe that people never, ever break rules. I truly would not have a response in that case. Tom Reedy 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Each time I read your response I find that you've managed to just miss the point of the argument. I am not disputing that returning colonists leaked information about the conditions on the colony. The whole point of the True Declaration was to counter this. I don't doubt that colonists might have sent letters back to England and the Virginia Company wished to control the information in them. However, we are (or at least I am) talking about a major and detailed 24,000 word report on the colony by the secretary William Strachey who went there. Given its details about the murder and insurrection on the colony, do you really believe that the Virginia Company would have let this company document into the public domain thus jeopardising their aim of attracting new investors. Highly improbable wouldn't you say?! (Puzzle Master 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Each time I read your response I find that you've managed to just miss the point of the argument. Nobody is claiming the report was circulated to the public; to the contrary, there were good reasons for it not to be publicly circulated, as you point out. The report undoubtedly circulated within the company, therefore it ciculated in MS, as Wells states. And it is not too much of a stretch to think someone in the company shared it with trusted friends. There were just too many people who knew about it and it happens that way even today. There are many documented avenues through which the MS could have gotten to Shakespeare, and since there are many correspondences between the MS and The Tempest, he had to have read it. If he read it, then it circulated outside of the company, even if he was the only person outside the company to read it.Tom Reedy 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your parroting of my response adds nothing of substance to your argument. The only person who is known with certainty to have seen a copy is Richard Hakluyt (it was found amongst his papers whenhe died in 1616) whose name is also on the First Virginia Charter. With "there were just too many people who knew about it" you are inventing facts to try to establish your case. You argue from the premise that Shakspere the actor wrote the play and therefore it must have been widely circulated. If we were in a court of law examining the evidence for Shakspere writing this play and you said "since he wrote it, the MS must have been circulated outside of the company" you would be ridiculed! I have already stated why this MS would have been restricted. I invite you again to present the evidence that it was circulated outside the company, in particular, to Shakspere the actor. (Puzzle Master 09:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
 * And your continual changing of the subject once I've answered your previous question adds nothing of substance to your argument. You said I had ignored the most pertinent part of the document about the censorship of the letters, and I quoted myself to show that I had addressed it twice. You then switch the subject to the straw-man argument that the company would not have circulated the letter publicly, and I reminded you that I had already said that no one is making that argument. Now you want to switch the argument over to the authorship, and I must remind you again that this encyclopedia article--by Wikipedia policy--reflects the scholarly consensus at the moment, and that scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly on the side that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. I have done thorough research into the counter claims, and I find all their arguments unconvincing, to be kind. If you want to argue contrary to the received opinion, I suggest you do so on a newsgroup or listserv devoted to that type of thing. I know several that I can point you to if you are unaware of them. But I am not going to argue authorship with you on this forum, which is for discussion of what should and should not go into the article.
 * And my argument for the circulation of the letter you find so laughable is the same as for any other source in Shakespeare. We see evidence that Shakespeare used Holinshed in 3H6, therefore he read it; we see evidence he used North's translation of Plutarch in JC, therefore he read it; we see evidence he used the Strachey letter in Tempest, therefore he read it. Tom Reedy 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for my response here but I seem to have previewed it without posting it. Ok so my point is this. Is it credible to believe that a company document which contained information that would have been damaging to the company was shown by a shareholder (whose best interest in ensuring a return on his investment would have been to restrict this document) to an actor called Shakespere whose business was public? I don't see it happening. (Puzzle Master 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Wow - now you are inventing the facts - the most any scholar should be able to say is that Strachey is a possible source. Are you now saying that Strachey is a "certain" source? Which is my point - The strittmater/kosintsky research, as confirmed in Mark Anderson's book, raises enough reasonable doubt about Strachey, that were it not for their own stratfordian POV, more mainstream researchers would admit how shakey Strachey really is, and the invention that Stratford saw a private manuscript is yet another "assumption" about the man that is impossible to prove with certainty. (I'm surprised someone hasn't said that Strachey must have met Stratford and told him the story in person!Smatprt 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At least one person has. Check out David Raine. AndyJones 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ". . . the most any scholar has been able to say is that Tempest is a possible source." You obviously are not conversant with the literature on the subject. Ask Lynne. She knows exactly what the scholars have said.Tom Reedy 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only relevant part of this discussion is:
 * Q: Why does the article say that the Strachey report "circulated in manuscript"?
 * A: Stanley Wells says so in his Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, p.470.
 * ✅. That's how reliable sourcing works. The rest of this thread is original research and it's something we don't do, here. If you want to pursue the issue, please do so on another website: there are plenty out there. If Wells is wrong then eventually scholarship will catch up with him, and after that Wikipedia can catch up with scholarship. But what we do is report the current scholarly consensus. AndyJones 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's such a long time since I encountered Andy Goebbels, Head of Wiki Stratfordian Propaganda! I know your rules, I'm just fascinated why you choose to subscribe to them - why you knowingly support the distribution of, at the very least, dubious information (my case for this is given above). Of course, you are not responsible for any of this. All you have to do is invoke a higher authority, in this case an 'academic' source, and you're off the hook. Nothing to do with you. Except you have chosen to assist in brainwashing the curious with this superficial hogwash. Do you really believe I'm going to stop discussing this injustice here on the basis of your personal authority? We've been here before haven't we? ... LOL. (Puzzle Master 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


 * It's not even his idea, it's the thousands of wikipedians who said that this encyclopedia needs academic sources to back it's statements up. Call it whatever you want, but that's the way it is. Find a scholarly source for your arguments and they can be put in, otherwise, no. Wrad 15:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --131.118.144.253 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (Ben)


 * Dear Mr Wrad, I know that you are an intelligent man because on your profile it says you have an IQ of 160 (resisting my first reaction to feel inferior, well done!) Nevertheless, nowhere do I claim that Mr Goebbels (I jest, he's really a god guy) invented the rules (obviously, 'your' in context means 'Wiki') only that he chooses to subscribe to them as far as disseminating the implication that Shakspere authored the work is concerned. (Puzzle Master 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I realize you're jesting about Goebbels, I'm just not sure what you mean by that last part. Are you saying he's hiding reliably cited information? As an aside, the funny thing about IQ tests is that even a four year old can get a 160, so how smart am I really? :)Wrad 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's refreshing to find a person here who's willing to listen! This is my position. I don't agree with the Wiki criterion for the falsification of a proposition that is already in the encyclopedia (I paraphrase): a statement merits exclusion (or qualification) only if sufficient counter evidence has been published by a peer-reviewed source. That means someone could advance a convincing case here for the exclusion of a proposition from the encyclopedia (e.g. the proposition that the Strachey letter was "circulated in manuscript", a statement which appears in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, p.470), anyone could check the given sources for the counter argument, be convinced of the doubt of that proposition, yet still leave it in. If this occurs, integrity disintegrates and one choses to apply the Wiki guidelines and leave the dubious proposition in the encyclopedia! And I claim the Strachey letter was a secret document and was not circulated in manuscript. I argue this case above with Tom Reedy that since it contained damning information about the poor conditions of the colony it was against the Virginia Company's interests to publicise it. But also we have the Virginia Council's instructions to the new governor Sir Thomas Gates (and, by implication, his secretary William Strachey) before setting off: "You must take especial care what relacions [accounts] come into England and what lettres are written and that all thinges of that nature may be boxed up and sealed and sent to first of [sic] the Council here, … and that at the arrivall and retourne of every shippinge you endeavour to knowe all the particular passages and informacions given on both sides and to advise us accordingly." [Item 27, Instruccions Orders and Constituccions … To Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia dated May 1610]. So my argument with Andy and Tom Reedy is that they are resisting the prohibition of a doubtful proposition in this encyclopedia and are assisting in the distribution of propaganda. (Puzzle Master 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * All of that seems reasonable, except that so far the only source you have is a primary source. Your case would be much stronger if you had a secondary source making your statements. Wrad 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact,the claim that the Strachey manuscript circulated in court or elsewhere is wholly conjectural, however well entrenched it may be in Tempest scholarship. The problem can be resolved, however, by the simple expedient of introducing some qualifiers, such as "it is often argued that" rather than merely introducing it as a bald fact. While I do not myself believe that the Strachey manuscript circulated in court, I could hardly object to a statement to the effect that many scholars believe it did. --131.118.144.253 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (Ben)


 * This is exactly my point! It is possible for anyone to demonstrate the dubious nature of a proposition from primary sources but Wiki guidelines require the proposition to remain in the encyclopedia unless the demonstration appears in a peer-reviewed (secondary) source. In other words, an editor, being convinced from primary sources of the doubt, must compromise his personal integrity by leaving the falsehood in the encyclopedia! May I suggest that a way out of this would be for Wiki to allow the invitation of an appropriate scholar to these pages to adjudicate on the issue. (Puzzle Master 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Even that wouldn't be enough, though. How do we know that this person is really a scholar? We can't see her and shake her hand and look at her diploma. We have no way of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia other than relying on peer-reviewed sources. I understand how you feel, but think that the safest thing to do, and the best thing for this article, is to stick to secondary sources and let scholarship publish corrections. There honestly isn't much more we can do. We can't compete with peer-reviewed research, since we can't be sure of anyone's credentials. Wrad 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but other sources ARE allowed. Peer reviewed journels are best,  but news articles in respected papers are also considered RS, as are other published books by professional publishing houses.Smatprt 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From wp:rs - In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses. ...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic publications may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications....Mainstream newspapers may be a reliable source for some subjects. ..."With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view...Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves (INSERT KATHMAN WEBSITE HERE!Smatprt 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged"- Another good example of why use of Kathman's website should be "discouraged" - especially when there are better sources that are not so embarrassingly POV, angry, childish, antagonistic, and mean-spirited (which is why some editors simply LOVE it).Smatprt 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tempest: Stritmatter-Kositsky research
I read on page 403 of Mark Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name that Stritmatter and Kositsky have "new evidence" that "demolishes the case" that William Strachey's letter was the source for The Tempest. It runs as follows:

(1) Unavailability of letter. "It is conventionally assumed that the play was written soon before its first recorded performance, at Whitehall Palace on November 1 1611. But Strachey only returned from the New World on a ship that landed in England in late October or early November of 1611. His manuscript, it now appears, did not precede him."
 * Response. Sir Thomas Gates, the colony governor whom Strachey had accompanied, returned to England in September 1610. So the possibility that the manuscript did not precede Strachey is not excluded.

(2) Letter still incomplete by November 1611. "Another Strachey book from 1612 (Laws, Morals, and Martial) refers to a work he hasn't yet completed about the Bermudas. If this is not the manuscript in question them Strachey describes a phantom."
 * Response. In fact, it is neither the manuscript in question nor a phantom. William Strachey later wrote The History of Travel into Virginia Britannica which avoided duplicating the details of the letter but remained unpublished until 1849. [A True Declaration of the state of the Colony in Virginia with a confutation of such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise in Wright, Louis B., A Voyage to Virginia 1609 (University Press of Virginia: 1904), p.xvii]

(3) Source. "The extensive nautical and New World imagery in The Tempest - what orthodox scholars believe originates in Strachey - actually comes from a 1523 dialogue written by the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus ("Naufragium") and a 1555 book by the English scholar Richard Eden (The Decades of the New World). Stritmatter and Kositsky demonstrate that Strachey, too, borrowed heavily from Erasmus and Eden."
 * Response. The advantage that the Strachey letter (1610) has over earlier sources is that it is topical and since King James had enormous interest in the Virginia Colony then allusions to it would have ensured his interest in the play. The shortness of the play suggests that it was intended for a private performance (perhaps especially written for King James) and the mention of "revels" at the end appears to confirm this. Anyone who checks the Erasmus, Eden, and Strachey documents against The Tempest will realise that the assertion that "The Tempest ... actually comes from" the Erasmus and Eden documents is an over-interpretation of the evidence.

I think that researching with an agenda (the play must be dated pre-1604 in order that Oxford wrote it) can tend to skew one's judgment. (Puzzle Master 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I hear your arguments and you make some good points - however my main point remains - that we cannot say that Strachey is a certain or "necessary source" - it is a possible source, just as Eramus and Eden are.  I mean, really, the parallels are quite commonplace (as Muir admits), so for anyone to say point blank that "Shakespeare must have read it" is overstating the evidence and listing "facts" that are not concrete.Smatprt 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Muir says Shakespeare undoubtedly read Strachey, and he gives many parallels. Brockbank traces parallels and themes all through the play that he attributes to Strachey's influence. One article whose contention ultimately rests on a a slight verbal similarity of two phrases between John Smith's 1612 "Map of Virginia" and the Strachey letter (one of which Smith copied from somewhere else) is not going to overturn 200 years of scholarship.
 * These arguments illustrate why this article needs to be taken to FA status. It has become an authorship battleground instead of a reliable source for people in search of information.Tom Reedy 20:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Report on Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited: Stritmatter-Kositsky
It is claimed that the idea that William Strachey's True Reportory returned to England with Gates in 15 July 1610 is an unwarranted assumption (made by the commentators Gayley and Wright) based on the fact that known primary travel documents refer to only one voyage to England after that date (which would not have been in time to influence the The Tempest), namely, De La Warre’s ship which left Virginia on 28 March 1611 and arrived in England 11 June 1610. The authors maintain that if the document had travelled on this later ship it could not have influenced the play, despite there being 19 weeks to its 1 November performance. As the authors dramatically put it, if the Strachey letter had travelled on this ship “the case for its influence on the Shakespearean play collapses”. In Ben Jonson's Prologue to Volpone, Jonson gives an insight into the time it takes to write a play stating: “five weeks fully penned it/From his own hand, without a co-adjutor,/Novice, journeyman or tutor.” So 19 weeks seems ample time for Shake-speare (whoever he was) to read the True Reportory, write the play, and rehearse the actors. The authors also assume without reason that the absence of details of other ships travelling between Virginia and England means that there were none. This aside, the authors main argument is that the True Reportory could not have accompanied Gates on 15 July 1610. The reasons they give for this are as follows:
 * (1) Richard Martin, a leading shareholder of the Virginia Company, wrote to William Strachey who was still in Virginia on 14 December 1610, requesting details about the soil, the natives, their attitude to the settlers, and other matters, to be conveyed by “the return of this ship [likely The Hercules which sailed from England for Virginia in Dec 1610]”. The authors inform us that “by far the simplest and most elegant solution is that Strachey answered Martin in the manuscript later published as True Reportory” in other words, Martin would not have asked these questions if he had seen the True Reportory, and so it was not written by 14 December 1610. However, the possibility is not eliminated that the True Reportory had actually reached England by that date but Martin had not had access to it, which instead argues its confidential nature, an interpretation the authors acknowledge but to which they unfairly give lesser emphasis.
 * (2) Again, in appropriate theatrical terms, the authors claim that “the most devastating blow to the Gayley-Wright transmission model ... is the internal evidence of the text itself”. The True Reportory refers to Gates' departure so must have been written after it: “And the fifteenth day of July, in the ‘Blessing,’ Captain Adams brought [Sasenticum and his son Kainta] to Point Comfort, where at that time (as well to take his leave of the lieutenant general, Sir Thomas Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the ships)”. Furthermore, the authors claim, it is not as if these events occur at the end of the document (which would have cleared up the problem) for it “continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration (registered Nov. 1610).” Closer inspection of Wright's publication of the True Reportory shows that in fact Strachey's letter continues for less than two hundred words, before terminating with some kind remarks to the “right noble lady” it was addressed to. The seventeen hundred words of the quite different True Declaration are not part of Strachey's letter and have been inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet of 1964. In addition, no events beyond 15 July 1610 are described in William Strachey's letter. If the letter was not sent with Gates back to England, why did Strachey terminate it on the date of Gates' departure and not continue adding to it?
 * (3) The authors claim that in Strachey's work Laws of 1612, William Strachey alludes to the True Reportory being incomplete: “I have both in the Bermudas, and since in Virginea beene a sufferer and an eie witnesse, and the full storie of both in due time shall consecrate unto your viewes . . . Howbet since many impediments, as yet must detaine such my observations in the shadow of darknesse, untill I shall be able to deliver them perfect unto your judgements . . .I do in the meane time present a transcript of the Toparchia or State of those duties, by which their Colonie stands regulated and commaunded”. According to the authors, Strachey is “describing True Reportory, or a lost text just like it, as not only unpublished but incomplete”. I find this to be an over-interpretation and while he might well be alluding to the True Reportory he could just as well be saying that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to publish his completed letter.

My conclusion is that, with high probability, the True Reportory travelled back to England with Gates on 15 July 1610 and that the authors cannot sustain their case to the contrary. (Puzzle Master 21:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * This is being debated on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page. (Puzzle Master 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Something I dredged up - it's the signature at the bottom that caught my eye.

"I've looked again at Dave Kathman's essay, and, I'm afraid, remain unconvinced. The evidence that will establish a particular text as a 'source' may take a number of forms.  The easiest is, of course, a continuous recollection of an original. So, in this play, the fact that Prospero's 'Ye elves' speech is derived from Ovid's Metamorphoses via Golding's translation is inescapable. Shakespeare must either have known it off by heart, or have been referring closely to it as he wrote the speech.  Dave Kathman's argument for the Strachey letter is rather that accumulation of a number of small details generates a constellation of ideas and phrases only to be found in that particular source and in The Tempest.  There is, of course, a potential here for a circularity of argument - as indeed Dr Kathman recognises - in that some of the parallels he cites are fairly tangential, and could only be entertained if one first accepts the larger contention that Shakespeare had read the Strachey letter closely. I would want to argue that this is the case for virtually all the instances he collects.

So, for example, he cites Strachey's 'we... had now purposed to have cut down the Maine Mast' as a parallel to the boatswain's 'Down with the topmast', but apart from the consideration that this must have been a necessary action in any storm, one might think that Ovid's Metamorphoses 11. l. 158 in Golding's translation, which reads 'Anon the Master cryed strike the toppesayle, let the mayne / Sheete flye' is both rather closer, and derived from a source which undoubtedly Shakespeare was consulting as he wrote the play.

Kathman cites Strachey's 'Prayers might well be in the heart and lips' as precedent for the mariner's cry 'to prayers! To prayers', but, again, this is part of standard storm description, and can be found, for example, in Newton's translation of Seneca's Agamemnon: 'To prayer then apace we fall, when other hope is none'. The description of St. Elmo's fire in Ariel's speech, which Mowat also considers 'echoes only Strachey amongst the play's recognised infracontexts', has, to my mind, a analogy at least as close in Erasmus's Colloquy, 'Naufragium', where (in a modern translation) 'the blazing ball slid down the ropes and rolled straight up to the skipper ... After stopping there a moment, it rolled the whole way round the ship, then dropped through the middle hatches and disappeared'. (There are one or two other possible parallels to this source in the play.)

Overall, I would still stand by my feeling that whilst the Strachey letter is a *possible* source for The Tempest, it is not a *necessary* source, in the way that Ovid or Montaigne both are, nor does it provide a particular point of reference in the way that The Aeneid does.

In the end, of course, it's very much a matter of individual judgement - members of this list might very well, and properly, be more convinced than I. Greenblatt famously characterised source hunting as 'the elephant's graveyard' of literary criticism - and what is most interesting, and most important, are the kinds of investment one brings to tracking down sources, and the different kinds of consequence one draws from their recognition.

David Lindley, Professor of Renaissance Literature

School of English, University of Leeds"

posted by Smatprt 06:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Lindley doesn't think the play could be earlier than 1608-09. Tom Reedy 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be, but I believe this question was about the certainty of Strachey. Claiming that "200 years of scholarship" is united in its belief in the Strachey argument is just as misleading as claiming the authorship question does not exist (a bridge everyone seems to have finally crossed). Lindley is a good example.Smatprt 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Authorship section deleted
The reason given for including the authorship section--"that authorship has certainly become a major issue"--is not true for anyone outside of the usual authorship subculture. This article is, by Wiki standards, supposed to be a reflection of the general scholarly consensus, and that consensus at the moment is that the play is dated 1610-11 and that William Shakespeare wrote it. The fact that several books promoting the alternative authorship of Shakespeare's works includes contentions to the contrary does not privilege that POV nor allow it a forum in this article. As I wrote above, the publication of one article challenging the scholarly consensus has not yet reversed 200 years of scholarship, no matter what fantasies anyone might have to the contrary. Before anyone decides to add an authorship section, a consensus among the editors of this article needs to be reached, because until that happens, I will revert it every time I see it, and I am sure others feel the same way.Tom Reedy 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I side with Tom on this. Authorship does not merit its own section. I think it only merits a sentence or so, as we did in the Hamlet article. Wrad 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not about sides - it's about deleting referenced material complete with secondary sources. That's called vandalism. Dictating who can add what and under what circumstances is not Tom's perogative. The material is timely, reflects modern alternative research and reflects a counter opinion with plenty of reliable sources to back up the claim that Tempest has indeed become a key battleground over the authorship issue, ans why.  I can cite dozens of sources on both sides of the debate that mention the Tempest and how it figures in the debate.  How many would you like? (of course you all know this.) Deleting this is true suppression of information. I had thought some of you were past that. Smatprt


 * On these pages, it's not about counting votes, it's about compromise. Simply deleting material is not compromise. Wasn't it one of you who used to say that "deletion should be a last resort?"Smatprt 06:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Answering a few of the above points:
 * Vandalism. Smatprt is very fond of describing the removal of anything added by him as "vandalism", and there's at least one instance of him slapping a {blatantvandal} tag on the userpage of someone he was in a content dispute with.

Really??? I've never heard of a blantantvandal tag. Can you please post the dif here or on my talk page so I can verify this. Perhaps I was posting in my sleep? Smatprt 07:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * here AndyJones 08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * didn't think so. That was a stop hand symbol and a "warning" to stop vandalzing. This was my first "warning" and I followed what I thought was the required process  of "warning" someone before reporting them to an administrator. Your accusation of a "blantantvandal" tag was not quite accurate.Smatprt 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in this, but I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. What you put on the guy's page renders as:

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Smatprt 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

and {blatantvandal} renders as:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. AndyJones 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a meaningful distinction, here, it is lost on me. AndyJones 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Andy - I just knew I had never even heard of a "Blatant Vandal Tag". It sounded like a big stamp that came down from the heavens and labled the user a BLATANT VANDAL!!!!  Now that I see you are just rasing dust because i had the decency to give someone a warning instead of sandbagging them, I'll just ignore this comment.  I don't see why anyone would take it for anything more than a pet peeve of yours. What a waste of time.Smatprt 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * AndyJones 12.Nov.07 posting continues... Nobody else takes that type of comment seriously, and none of us appreciates being called a vandal. So please let's not do it. Removing material is part of the process by which this wiki (indeed any wiki) develops. It is good to delete material where WP:RS and WP:NPOV require it.
 * Compromise. Compromise has nothing to do with it. As a matter of practicality we have to work with any editor who wants to show up at this page, but it's quite wrong to think that the page must somehow be "a compromise". The page must be an honest reflection the current scholarly views on its subject. Anything that's new and cutting-edge doesn't fit in with that aim, anyway: all kinds of theories are published each year in the journals and don't gain traction.
 * NPOV. At the core of NPOV is giving subjects their due weight. Wikipedia already gives more-than its due weight to the Oxfordian theory, mainly due to the efforts of a small number of POV-pushers who are active wikipedians.
 * "Tempest and Authorship" section. Everyone will be well-aware of my lack of patience with the authorship question, and my desire to keep Wikipedia focussed on issues which have some grounding in reality. Having said all of the above, however, I can think of at least two arguments in favour of this section existing:
 * Unquestionably, a lot of the authorship debate centres on the Tempest: unsurprisingly since it was written six or seven years after the death of the Earl of Oxford. It follows that there will be plenty of sourceable material on the subject. I think it will be easier for a reader to assimilate, too, if separated from the main text of the page. Having said that, I'm not so strongly of the view that it should be on this page: I guess it depends how long it would be.
 * As a matter of practicality, if the authorship nonsense has its own section, it will be possible for those of us who care about Wikipedia being honest and useful to its readers to build the rest of the article without having to incorporate any anti-strat guff, and without having to edit-war with anti-strats, since anything they add can always be relegated to the separate section. At least it would avoid us ending up with the kind of POV-pushing crap not-very-useful-information that is, for example Henry VIII (play). AndyJones 10:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of that authorship information is cited by peer-reviewed, scholarly secondary sources. It doesn't deserve it's own section here. My compromise is to allow a few sentences, which is more than some editors would give. Wrad 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Wrad - Try This: Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, Stritmatter and Kositsky Review of English Studies, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,2007; 58: 447-472.  Dredge, dredge. Smatprt 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't find this article on any database. Did you get it from that website? Wrad (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I got mine from the author. Try looking here if you have access. http://res.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/236/447Smatprt (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including a sentence and a link to the relevant section of the authorship article, but an extended treatment does not belong here, I don't care how many published references anyone can dredge up.Tom Reedy 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a short paragraph that briefly explains the key points of the debate. Andy gives some reasons for a short seperate section that does not mess with the mainstream sections. That is why I posted a seperate section instead of trying to invade the regular traditional date section. And Andy is correct to admonish - accusations of vandalism, lies, sockpuppets, etc, do no use and I will admit that I have certainly fought fire with fire. I will do my best to resist the temptation. Smatprt 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Although an Oxfordian and a Tempest researcher, I don't believe that an authorship section is necessary on The Tempest page; however, I do think it important to include argument/reference to material by Shakespeareans of all stripes as long as their work has appeared in books--not self-published ones--or peer-reviewed journals. This seems the fairest approach. I hope that this solution is acceptable to all. Mizelmouse 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt's references
Stephen, authorship Web sites are not reliable or acceptable sources of information, for the most part. The Anderson link doesn't work, and why don't you cite the book? Have you not read it? You also need to give a page number in your RES cite. Citing the article and then giving a Fellowship Web page link won't work. Hardly any of that material on that page is in the article. Also please learn how to format your references.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom - the Anderson link works fine. Maybe you should try again. And on the Fellowship page you need to Scroll Down to the extensive tables of information that compare Strachey with Eden and Erasmus. Re: your theory on references, see below.

Tom Reedy, Stritmatter, Anderson & Kathman
Tom, you seem to be making up the rules since you began editing. Why don't you try this link WP:RS. It does state "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged". I think you are mistaking the Shakespeare Fellowship Website for a personal website or blog. It is not. The SF is a legal non-profit corporation doing business in the US. In keeping with their mission they maintain an education website for recent research, discussion and current news and events. Stritmatter is a published researcher and expert in his field. As is Anderson. They are RS, and Professional/Organizational websites that they contribute can certainly be quoted. Now contrast them with the "authorship website" of David Kathman. Kathman' is a personal website with no oversight, no business standards, and as a result is angry, childish, antagonistic, and mean-spirited (which is why some editors simply LOVE it). If Kathman's website can be used as a source, how on earth can you suggest that professional websites that quote Stritmatter or Anderson are not "reliable or acceptable"? I've been accused of a double standard, but Jeez!Smatprt (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said Dave's Web site can be used as a source? Not me. And I don't care if the Fellowship is a non-profit or if they give all their money to orphans, it is not a scholarly resource. By your standards I could post any clap-trap from whatever site and it would pass muster. And you need to stop projecting.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But a good actor needs to project well! :)    (And talk to Andy and Paul about why they think Dave's site is RS, not me)Smatprt (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your query, I am currently without my books and am referencing thru web sources only. That is why I supplied links to an interview with Anderson himself, paraphrasing his own book - how much more reliable that the author himself? Same with Strittmatter and the Fellowship website.Smatprt (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then get your books. Don't reference Web pages if the information is available in a book. I didn't take the cites down because I want you to reference them correctly, and also learn how to format the cites so other people won't have to go back after you.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Don't reference web pages if the info is available in a book?" And now he gives orders. Get real, Tom. Smatprt (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So according to you, anything on the Internet can be used as a reference. I suppose one shouldn't be surprised; you're just conforming to the scholarly standards for your end of the argument.168.39.112.20 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No of course not. I have never said that "anything" on the internet can be used as a reference. In fact, while I have said that there are plenty of web sites that can be used, I have repeatedly said that personal websites should NOT be used. I am not sure how you could have made that mistake.Smatprt (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You were the person who wrote "how much more reliable that the author himself?" above. That is just--I'm trying to think of a word that means "dumb" or "idiotic" without actually baldly stating it. Anderson's purpose is to sell books and promote Oxford; the Fellowship's stated purpose is to push Oxford on their Web site. Just because a Web site is non-profit does not make it a credible, acceptable source. As far as your projection goes, I challenge you to find anything on Dave and Terry's Web site that is "angry, childish, antagonistic, and mean-spirited." I can think of more than a dozen Oxfordians who fit that description, and some Strats, but Dave and Terry both are as far from that as is possible.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Bates purpose is to sell books. And Schoenbaums and Rowse's, etc. etc. Phewww - glad we cleared that up. Now who is being dumb or idiotic without baldly stating it? Please. Smatprt (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Awful State of Citations On This Page
The citations on the page need work. There is reference, for example, to Coursen (2000), but no identification of the text actually being cited. Given the weight of material bearing down on this one slender point of reference, to find that the reference itself is missing does more than cause one to raise an eyebrow over the editorial standards being employed here.

I suggest some remedy is in order. Perhaps those who originally provided the references could be so kind as to bring the bibliography up to date.--BenJonson (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC) above comment deleted by an anon: not sure if BenJonson or another. AndyJones (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. discussed in the section "sources" above. Yes, if the original reffers could answer my various questions, there, that would be helpful. AndyJones (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both, and especially BJ's comment that some very thin reeds are bearing a lot of weight. The article has been raggety for quite some time now, and it won't be until the middle of next month before I'll be able to spend any time editing. I also note the current "improved" version of the authorship alternative is well-nigh incoherent and cites 150-year-old scholarship, but that's all one to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I tried to recall the above comment after looking again at the references [yes, it was me].The references are confusing, but in fact Coursen is fully cited, contrary to my first impression. The problem is more subtle than the one I mentioned. But I'm glad that others agree the section could use more work. One thing that the page should do is to give a more complete analysis of the history of speculation and argument on the play's chronology. I added citations to Elze and Hunter, two early scholars who dated the play to circa 1604. There may be a difference of opinion here about whether 150 year old scholarship is relevant. It is certainly relevant, imo, if contemporary scholars have made further arguments that tend towards its confirmation, particularly when others are boldly summarizing a tradition of scholarship that has applied white out to the names and sources in question, creating a false sense of unanimity where none in fact existed. --BenJonson (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article is not the place to publicize theories that have not been accepted or even debated by the scholastic community at large. One article in one peer-reviewed journal does not a mandate make, especially since it has not been discussed or refuted in any like venue. And the "false sense of unanimity" you rail against is in fact virtually the case when it comes to the dating of the play.Tom Reedy (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I would appreciate, Tom, if you would offer me the simple dignity of refering to me by the name I've chosen for this exchange. You may think that you know who I am, but so far I'm not convinced that you really do. Second, and more to the point, who ever said anything about a "mandate"? You made that up, and its a straw man. What this page should include, it seems to me, is a judicious presentation of the competing views on Tempest chronology. Contrary to the false impression of many, there is in fact a credible scholarly view, going back into the 19th century and in the 21st century including names like Penny McCarthy and David Lindley, etc., who don't accept, as you seem to, the conventional premise of Strachey as a source. Some of these scholars have all along dated the play to circa 1603-4 (McCarthy even suggesting a date as early as 1598; Lindley, rather later, but still too early for Strachey to have been a source). Unless you think that only majority opinions have a right to be articulated, I invite you join me, and others, in trying to create a page that fairly and accurately reflects the actual diversity of opinion on these matters. That means acknowledging the majority opinion, considering its merits, and putting on record the alternative views espoused by those who have never accepted it. --131.118.144.253 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who are trying to supress the fact that BenJonson's real name is Roger Stritmatter ... behave! Roger should be allowed to be himself ... and he's actually a fun guy ... I mean, recently he appended SPAM to all my e-mails and sent them back ... I love it! Anyone who has devoted his life to researching Oxford (where I live) is a friend of mine and I want to see a photo of him on his profile (not out of a romantic intent, you understand!) (Puzzle Master (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
 * First off, I apologize for referring to you by name instead of your chosen posting ID. I was under the impression it was not a secret. Secondly, to your point about the "mandate" remark, I was alluding to your statement that "contemporary scholars have made further arguments that tend towards its confirmation." That has not been established, as I stated, although some people are acting as if it were. I also question your presentation of an early Tempest date as a "credible scholarly view." There may be credible scholars who have tossed off the idea of an early Tempest date, but they have not offered any support for it in the form of any credible studies or papers. IMO the only "credible scholarly views" are from those who have actually studied the subject; not from those who have just made some off-hand and unstudied comments. As for what this article should and should not include, that is the purpose of this discussion page.Tom Reedy (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this does have advantages. I have a question. Is the weblink provided with the strittmater source present the exact same thing as what was published in the oxford database? Wrad (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the article at all. It appears to be a copy of our online table, which although still in a state of undress, demonstrates alternative sources for Tempest. The article itself is only available to subscribers or those who can access jstor. Mizelmouse (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that. I have access to jstor and several other things and can't seem to access it. Are we certain that the reference is being formatted correctly? Is all the information there? Wrad (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * JSTOR only goes up to Nov. 2000, LION only up to Jan. 2006. You have to access Oxford Journals Online. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to say. Citations are much better now. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Themes section
I'm going to start work on this section soon. Scholarship I'm looking over seems to highlight most themes of "Dream and illusion", "Magic", and "Seas, storms, and tempests". This is what I'll probably aim for. The OR sections we currently have are thus at risk of extinction unless I find something that backs them up. Wrad (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Analysis and critism
I've just finished standerdising the analysis and critism section. We still need a Language section, and the Critical History section needs some work. I might get to this later today. Bardofcornish (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article will end up having a critical history section. It doesn't have as much on it as Hamlet did. Wrad (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may not have as much as Hamlet, but it still has the major theme of colonies, natives, ect. Critics opinions on this have changed over time--it's only quite recently that they've started seeing from Caliban's point of view (it's also quite recently that directors have potrayed Caliban as a nything other than completely bad). Bardofcornish 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true. The thing is, I think critical history can be covered well enough in the other sections. The colonial section, for example, already covers the history of it's colonial analysis pretty well. Wrad 18:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I noticed you moved the Post-Coloniast section back under Themes making it seem even less than critical history. Could we compromise by putting it under Other Critical Aproaches? (There's also Feminist Critism which would fit nicely under there). Bardofcornish 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that where I put it? Wrad (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. So sorry, it's been moved under three different headings so I wasn't sure. Is there any more work that needs to be done on the analysis and critism section? Bardofcornish (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
I wish DioPro was here to do a template for us. He's pretty good at that. It wouldn't be as big as R&J or Hamlet's, but it would have links to characters and films, at least. Wrad (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My Bit
I'm pleased to report that I've finished "my bit", that is to say, the Afterlife section, of the collaboration on the Tempest article. I don't mean that that bit is perfect or finished, just that I've done as much as I'm going to do. I'm probably switching my attentions back to the FA drive at Hamlet for a while. AndyJones (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I was lying when I said I was finished: I was hoping to find a good source on Music, so that I could expand that section enough to divide "Other" into "Music" "Art" and "Literature", which I've now done. I have now finished my substantive contribution to the Tempest collaboration, but of course I'm still around to help out where needed. AndyJones (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all very impressive. We haven't had this kind of breadth in afterlife sections before. Wrad (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Line counts
Do we want line counts for individual characters in this article? Some have been added here. I have to say that I vote against, subject to any opinions others may have. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Date and Text
This section hurts my eyes and stretches the margins. What is that quote doing there, and where did it come from? The Last Melon (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What quote? "stretches the margins"? I don't follow. There was some vandalism, but it should have been long gone when you wrote this comment. Paul B (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. It was just a minor format problem. Paul B (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. The Last Melon (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Template 2
I think we should make one for this play as we did for R&J and Hamlet. It wouldn't be anywhere near as big, but it would still be useful. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! It appears I've said this before! Wrad (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Themes section help!
This section is really kicking my trash and I need help. This play has some pretty complex criticism for that reason it is particularly hard to separate the themes into sections. Here are some of the basic themes I've dug up so far, but am unsure how to communicate:


 * 1) Shakespeare = Prospero, "Farewell to the theatre" idea
 * 2) The Court Masque - Apparently The Tempest has a lot in common with a theatrical form of the time called a Court Masque. Ive read a lot about it, but it's way over my head and I find it, to be honest, extremely dull. Can someone with more theater expertise deal with this?

Anyway, I can't seem to pull these things together. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as you may have noticed, I don't like touching the themes/criticism sections of play articles because frankly all that stuff goes way over my head. However as you may also have noticed I'm very interested in history & performance issues. I've got some excellent sources here on the masque stuff and its connection to The Tempest. I'll have a look over the next couple of days and I'll either have a go at improving that bit, or I'll report back here. AndyJones (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's actually my biggest problem, and I've found so much literature about it. I'll work on #1. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)