Talk:Chronology of Shakespeare's plays

message: Isn't the currently dominant view that 2H6 (The First Part of the Contention) is the earliest play entirely or partly written by Shakespeare? I think it is widely accepted that the histories were arranged in the First Folio in historical sequence to form consistent tetralogies rather than according to the chronology of their creation. Since the article aims to present "the plays in the generally accepted order" (a highly questionable aim in itself, since much in this case is still generally controversial rather than "generally accepted") I suggest editing to the following order: 2H6, 3H6, 1H6. Are there any objections?S.Camus 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is absolutely correct, and more generally this list needs citations, since, as you say, much of it is open to debate. The Singing Badger 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd agree that the currently dominant view is that 1H6 postdated 2H6 and 3H6. I don't think it necessarily follows that it was the first play. I'm sure I can source people who think TGV is in pole position, for example. AndyJones 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, really we need to dig out the evidence for this stuff. There's a reason why 1H6 is believed to postdate the other two; let's state more reasons in this article. It's too vague at the moment. The Singing Badger 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AndyJones. The Taming of the Shrew, among others, has also been proposed as earliest. On the whole, it is significantly less tricky to order Shakespeare plays within a single genre than across genres, so even though 2H6 may not be number one, it may still be considered as the first of the three Henry VI plays and probably of the histories too. Does that mean this entry should feature two chronologies: one genre by genre and a more tentative general one? S.Camus 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that splitting by genre would help. Still, listing the chronology remains a fundamentally flawed aim, since many of the plays are so vaguely and uncertainly dated that a simple list gives a misleading sense of clarity. It's a tricky problem needing an imaginative solution! The Singing Badger 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would chuck the precise dates.  Something like The Two Gentlemen of Verona, for example, is dated anywhere from 1589 to 1594, depending on what book you read, with I think recent opinion gravitating toward the earlier end.  Right now the article just says "1594," without even a circa to imply a smidgen of hedging & doubt.  Hedge, people! We've got to go wobbly. I think having two chronologies like S. Camus suggested is a great idea.  Eupolis 19:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early histories (Henry VI plays) 

message: Why isn't this listed in the misattribution section? john k (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the play should be listed in this article, but with the most recent analysis by Vickers, combined with earlier scholars, as well as Sams, it should probably be listed under the Possible Collaborations section. Also, according to the play's article here on WP, "In the Textual Companion to the Oxford Complete Works of Shakespeare, Gary Taylor states that "of all the non-canonical plays, [Edward III] has the strongest claim to inclusion in the Complete Works" (the play was subsequently edited by William Montgomery and included in the second edition of the Oxford Complete Works, 2005). Smatprt (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward III? 

message: This material does not belong in this article. Please see WP:DUE, WP:OR, and WP:ONEWAY. 
To answer your question, I would have the references support each sentence of this in a prominent manner while discussing the chronology of Shakespeare's plays, i.e. not en passant while mainly discussing some other related topic. You really need to learn what reliable sources are. You can't use a passing mention as a reference. See here: , "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments."
"While most scholars have adopted a generally accepted order (see below), many dates continue to be debated and all dates should be taken as highly speculative. A number of orthodox scholars, as well as many anti-Stratfordian  researchers (so called because they argue that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the Shakespearean canon, disagree with the conventional dating (dissenting view: Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian).[1][2][3][4]"
So take each sentence and quote the supporting text from each source. Otherwise, stop reverting. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems misleading to suppress this information.  The reader needs to know that this chronology is not universally supported by scholars.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your complaint is with Wikipedia policy. The information is not being suppressed; it has its place in the Oxfordian article. The chronology is actually argued among Shakespearean scholars, but a general consensus has developed, and in any case the fact that Shakespeareans do not agree on every detail is no argument that someone else wrote the plays. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is not being made. If that is not clear then I have no problem tweaking the sentence to make that clarification. And providing more sources should also not be a problem. But this is an example of what is becoming an issue - you are requiring sources for statements that do not require them. You know perfectly well that the chronology of the plays is a key ingredient in the great majority of authorship debates. You also know that the issue has been responded to by every major stratfordian critic - Matus even has an entire chapter on it. You are well studied in authorship matters, so you are aware of all this. Demanding sources is required for "controversial" and potentially untrue statements. This is not the case here and you know this. So to "take each sentence and quote the supporting text from each source", as you demand, is simply overkill. As I said though, providing some additional sources will not be difficult, but at some point in our dispute resolution, there needs to be a discussion about what material really needs sourcing and what does not. Smatprt (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every contentious statement requires sources. And as I said, sources that mention the topic only in passing (suach as the Newsweek article) are not acceptable. And yes, you need to support every statement with a quote from the sources, because your statements are not in them. You seem to think you can google up any web site using a few terms and that should be good enough. I concede that it's good enough for most anti-Stratfordians, but Wikipedia standards are somewhat higher. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun referencing now. I ref'd to Sams for the first statement and supplied the requested quote, and Matus for the last (quote coming). I ref to Newsweek for the word "revisionist" but Matus covers the rest.Smatprt (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe chronology 

message: I've removed for the nth time, Smatprt's material.
===Dissenting viewpoints===
While all dating should be taken as highly speculative, numerous scholars have adopted a generally accepted chronological ordering (see below). A number of independent researchers, however, disagree with the conventional dating and many specific dates continue to be debated.http://www.ericsams.org/sams_oxfordorstratford.htm "The dating, genesis and text of the Oxford Complete Works are therefore in urgent need of radical reappraisal. So are their stylometric computer programmes, their a priori assumptions, and their general methodology."
 
A dissenting view also comes from many anti-Stratfordian researchers, who assert that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the Shakespearean canon. In particular, the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship relies on an alternate chronology that is earlier than traditionally accepted.http://willyshakes.com/valiant.htm paragraphs 10-13Matus, Irvin; Shakespeare, In Fact; 1994, pp 145-167; 219-263
::Smatprt does not understand what one is asking for when demanding articles be sourced to WP:RS. Irvin Leigh Matus may defend a 'mainstream perspective' and while doing so, analyse the bizarre material on chronology in the de Verean fringe, but he is not a scholar. He is, like 99% of the de Verean fellowship, an independent, unqualified outside researcher, who has written journalism and a book attacking the fringe perspective of Oxfordian 'theory'. This makes him a source for any article on the de Verean theory, but does not make him a source for a page which deals with the technical history of fixing the chronology of Shakespeare's plays, which has a huge technical, eminently RS, literature dating back a century and more. The only thing I have noticed is that Smatprt reverted three or four times in a day the edits by others which challenged his exploitation of this material, failed to argue his case, as he was asked to do, on the talk page, and simply, once the 24 hour limit had expired, reintroduced it in the article, as if nothing had happened in the meantime, inviting an edit-war. I ask him therefore to iron this disagreement out on the talk page, and justify it to obtain some consensus before unilaterally plunking his controversial intrusion of what is, whether sourced to Matus or not, material that lacks an optimal RS qualification, as that is commonly understood, i.e., a book published under a respectable university imprint by a ranking mainstream scholar of Elizabethan and Shakespearian problems. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree that Matus is not RS for the statement in question. I've answered your objections. You don't agree with those answers and continue to challenge sources, but that is not going to change, and you appear unwilling to compromise, or even consider the suggestions of other editors. Given the situation, I don't see how to proceed other than to continue editing and wait for input from the appropriate notice boards. Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion noted, but you haven't answered any objections. I don't compromise with fringe invasions of articles that can be perfectly edited according to the wide, copious resources of mainstream scholarship. By 'continue to edit' I gather you intend an edit-war, in lieu of a clarification, not yet forthcoming, of whether or not the de Verean claptrap is a minority, as opposed to a fringe view? Minority views, such as Honigmann's, have a place here. The views of self-published amateurs with no academic credentials, espousing a fringe viewpoint, have no place in wikipedia's ambition to provide the best up-to-date scholarly sources for its articles. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing highly dubious material 

message: While all dating should be taken as highly speculative, numerous scholars have adopted a generally accepted chronological ordering (see below). A number of independent researchers, however, disagree with the conventional dating and many specific dates continue to be debated.http://www.ericsams.org/sams_oxfordorstratford.htm "The dating, genesis and text of the Oxford Complete Works are therefore in urgent need of radical reappraisal. So are their stylometric computer programmes, their a priori assumptions, and their general methodology."
 
A dissenting view also comes from many anti-Stratfordian researchers, who assert that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the Shakespearean canon. In particular, the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship relies on an alternate chronology that is earlier than traditionally accepted.http://willyshakes.com/valiant.htm paragraphs 10-13Matus, Irvin; Shakespeare, In Fact; 1994, pp 145-167; 219-263
::Smatprt does not understand what one is asking for when demanding articles be sourced to WP:RS. Irvin Leigh Matus may defend a 'mainstream perspective' and while doing so, analyse the bizarre material on chronology in the de Verean fringe, but he is not a scholar. He is, like 99% of the de Verean fellowship, an independent, unqualified outside researcher, who has written journalism and a book attacking the fringe perspective of Oxfordian 'theory'. This makes him a source for any article on the de Verean theory, but does not make him a source for a page which deals with the technical history of fixing the chronology of Shakespeare's plays, which has a huge technical, eminently RS, literature dating back a century and more. The only thing I have noticed is that Smatprt reverted three or four times in a day the edits by others which challenged his exploitation of this material, failed to argue his case, as he was asked to do, on the talk page, and simply, once the 24 hour limit had expired, reintroduced it in the article, as if nothing had happened in the meantime, inviting an edit-war. I ask him therefore to iron this disagreement out on the talk page, and justify it to obtain some consensus before unilaterally plunking his controversial intrusion of what is, whether sourced to Matus or not, material that lacks an optimal RS qualification, as that is commonly understood, i.e., a book published under a respectable university imprint by a ranking mainstream scholar of Elizabethan and Shakespearian problems. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree that Matus is not RS for the statement in question. I've answered your objections. You don't agree with those answers and continue to challenge sources, but that is not going to change, and you appear unwilling to compromise, or even consider the suggestions of other editors. Given the situation, I don't see how to proceed other than to continue editing and wait for input from the appropriate notice boards. Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion noted, but you haven't answered any objections. I don't compromise with fringe invasions of articles that can be perfectly edited according to the wide, copious resources of mainstream scholarship. By 'continue to edit' I gather you intend an edit-war, in lieu of a clarification, not yet forthcoming, of whether or not the de Verean claptrap is a minority, as opposed to a fringe view? Minority views, such as Honigmann's, have a place here. The views of self-published amateurs with no academic credentials, espousing a fringe viewpoint, have no place in wikipedia's ambition to provide the best up-to-date scholarly sources for its articles. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissenting viewpoints

message: I believe the following statements require some pretty stringent sourcing, as per the policy I list below:
:1) most Shakespearean scholars agree within a few years for the composition of most plays
:2) most chronologies tend to agree on the order of plays written after c.1600
:3) the first performances of only two plays — Henry VIII and Henry VI, Part 1 — can be identified
:4) Most scholars,however, reject Honigmann's theory, saying it causes more problems than it solves
Honestly, I do not believe such references can be found, which is why I am tagging them.
In addition, please review WP:Reliable Sources/Academic consensus WP:RS/AC which states:
"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
Will the editors please review the above four statements with this policy in mind and either provide references that meet the above criteria, or rewrite the passages to conform to guidelines. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, these refs are easily found. I'm on the road for the next week or so, so I won't be able to get to them right away but rest assured they are forthcoming. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, I was able to get to most of them right away, and even improved the article a bit with some much-needed images. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References or rewrite needed. 

message: Quick question for other editors. I noticed that Tom, you changed the Stationers' Registry entry for Shrew from all italics to all italics except "a booke intitled". I'm just wondering, should any of it be in italics, as I want to adopt the same style for all records of Stationers' entries. Looking at facismiles, none of the wording was in italics, and no quotation points were used in the original entries, so I'm thinking they should all be in the form "a booke entitled Blah Blah Blah", as opposed to "a booke intitled Blah blah blah", "a booke entitiled "blah blah blah"" or (the way I originally had them) a booke intitled blah blah blah (which is obviously wrong, not sure what I was thinking italicising a booke intitled!) Bertaut (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, B, I just instinctively changed it without much thought. I just now checked at the SAQ page where we quoted some SR entries and we didn't italicize the titles. I have no strong feelings wither way, and I suppose it's the editor's choice, but either way we should be consistent. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh, and another, unrelated thing. I think the idea of introducing images is a good one, so I'll probably add a few myself over the next couple of days. I think it's probably best to limit ourselves to title pages of quartos and the like; the quarto of Edward III, for example, would be a good candidate, as would the 1598 quarto of Love's Labour's Lost, as both feature info which is important for dating purposes. Bertaut (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the title page of some sources would go good. I've already added one. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A booke intitled 

message: It now states that the Lord Chamberlains Men performed the play at Blackfriars in 1669.  This needs to be explained, and the evidence cited for the following reasons:  the company became the King's Men in 1603.  The theaters closed in 1642, in which time Blackfriars was dismantled.  When the theaters reopened in 1660, The Lord Chamberlains Men was not one of the companies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screensavant (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat belated reply  but yes, you are right. The passage is completely garbled. The record refers to the office of the Lord Chamberlain, not to the theatrical troupe the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Also, the quotation is "formerly acted at the Blackfriars", not "formally acted at the Blackfriars", which completely changes the meaning. So the Chamberlain is licensing a new performance, with the note that it had earlier been performed at Blackfriars. Paul B (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antony & Cleopatra Section 

message: As you may have noticed, I've added the in-use template to the article, as I'm going to do a major overhaul of pretty much the whole thing. Basically, I'm going to add all the missing info for all of the plays, as well as tidy up the references and add more images. Not sure how long it will take me, may not get it done in one editing session, but I will certainly get it finished by around this time tomorrow. So at the longest, 26 or 27 hours from now, it should be done. If I don't get it done in one session, I'll replace the in-use template with the under construction one till I'm done. When I'm finished, I'll come back here to give a quick overview of the changes. Bertaut (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That didn't take as long as I'd thought. Obviously, I already had it all ready and was just copying and pasting, but I thought it would take longer. Anyhow, firstly, let me apologise to those amongst you who auto-expand your watchlist, but I thought it better to do the edits play by play rather than simply doing one massive edit of the entire article. I figured it'd be easier for everyone to follow what I was doing that way (myself included). Okay, so the main changes I've made are to introduce an "Additional information" section in a few of the plays and to remove the Apocrypha section. I've added an additional information section whenever there are issues between two printed versions of a given play (such as Hamlet or Lear) or whenever there are questions regarding attribution (such as Edward III or Pericles). I just found it easier to keep this info separate from information purely relating to dating, and easier to read too. As regards the removal of the Apocrypha section. It's not a big deal. I moved Thomas More and all the info concerning Doubel Falsehood into the main section, which would have left very little in the Apocrypha section. I also don't think we really need an Apocrypha section; the article isn't about dating Shakespeare's Apocrypha. Everything else is pretty self explanatory. The article's pretty long and has over 400 references, but that can be chipped away at if people see fit. One thing I do want to mention as it's been a bone of contention in the past. I added a reference to the Oxfordian school of thought into the introduction (not the lede). I did this simply so we'd have two examples of scholars who dissent from the "traditional chronology" rather than one (Honigmann). It's no biggie one way or the other, just a brief mention and one reference. Right so. That's that then. I hope people are reasonably happy with the article. As always, there's plenty of room for improvement, but by and large, I'm pretty pleased with how it's turned out. Bertaut (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think that this has significantly improved the article. Just one point, which your latest edit putting the comma inside the quotation marks drew to my attention – Wikipedia (MOS:LQ) prefers logical punctuation to be used, rather than the American style which you have employed throughout. Peter Farey (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Thanks for pointing that out. I much prefer the logical style myself, but I was under the impression Wikipedia used the American style. I did some work on a GA many moons ago, and changed all the American to logical, and it was changed back by someone citing the MOS. I never bothered to check the validity myself, and I just got into the habit of using the American style ever since. Cheers for pointing it out, easily fixed. I'll take care of it as soon as I get a chance. Bertaut (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding missing info 

message: The "Modern Complete Works" section says that Pelican does not publish a complete works volume. This is false.
: Fixed. Bertaut (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Complete Works- Pelican Shakespeare 

message: I wanted to clarify this article's relationship to "The Oxford Shakespeare." First, where it says, "The following list adopts the Oxford Shakespeare chronology," it would be helpful to clarify if this is referring to The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works (2nd ed.), which I believe it is. Second, many entries in the chronology deviate from the Oxford chronology to a greater or lesser degree. Since these dates are debatable, would it be best to stick to the Oxford chronology in the interest of being consistent and referring to a clear authority? Alternatively, perhaps we should rephrase the above line to say that the list "is based on" or "draws on" or "derives from" the Oxford chronology or something like that, to make it clear that this list is not exactly the same as the Oxford chronology. David Bañuelos (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, both good points. Thanks for that. Your first point is a simple fix, which I'll do now. As regards your second point, the disparity in dates between this list and Complete Works is something of which I was aware. The interesting thing about the dates is that the dates given in The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works do not always correspond to the dates given in the William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, which is a companion to The Complete Works, and which I used fairly extensively when I was writing this article. I believe (although I won't swear to it), that I tended to stick closer to the dates in the Companion than in the Complete Works. But I think changing the sentence to read "based on" is probably the safest way to go. Bertaut (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed the sentence to read "The following list is based on that of The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works and the accompanying William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion." If you feel it still needs tweaking, by all means, tweak away. Bertaut (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the Textual Companion (published in 1997) was written to go along with the first edition of The Complete Works. They updated the chronology for the second edition (2005). David Bañuelos (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're partially correct. The Tetxual Companion was written in 1987 to go along with the 1986 Complete Works. A second edition of the Companion was published in 1997. This edition is referred to on multiple occasions in the 2005 2nd edition Complete Works, often on issues regarding dates. Bertaut (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to the Oxford Shakespeare  

message: cf. . Whose authority are we intending to cite here; Herbert or Adams? Herbert would be a primary source here, and Adams, if he does anything but reproduce the record in facsimile—in which case it is still a primary source—is not given in the citation. --Xover (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping? --Xover (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerest apologies for not addressing this Xover, I somehow must have missed it in my watchlist, which has been pretty full of late. To answer your question, the citation was added due to a point raised on my talk page regarding an ambiguity about the date in Kaston's Arden edition of the play. I did some checking around, and found that indeed there was a degree of ambiguity in reports of that first performance, not just in Kaston, so I needed a source that clarified "New Year's Night 1624-1625" (the ambiguous phrase used by Kaston). Herbert's record seemed the handiest as it explicitly records the performance as taking place on 1 January. Obviously, this is a primary source, but I used it in the same way as we would Henslow's Diary (as edited by R. A. Foakes). The citation having Herbert as the author instead of Adams as the editor is just a mistake on my part. I'll fix that right now, but if you want to replace it with a secondary source that confirms the 1 January date, by all means do so. As to your suggestion below, I see no problem with streamlining the references as you suggest. Bertaut (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response (and no worries, obviously). And thanks for clarifying. Adding Adams to the cite fixes the immediate problem, but I'm inclined to think in this case he's too close to the primary source. I'll take another look when I have the time to make sure I'm not just jumping to conclusions about it. Otherwise we should make sure to keep an eye out for a better source to replace Adams with eventually (really not urgent, imo). I'm thinking here particularly of all the potential for confusion around Lady Day and first vs. last day of year and so on. Someone like Schoenbaum that makes explicit how he treats primary-source dates would be ideal. --Xover (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite for 1 Henry IV? 

message: The sheer weight of references in this article… daunts me. 408 cites seems excessive, even for an article like this.
Just looking quickly down the list I see several cases just in the first 50 or so that are repeat cites to the same work (the Arden of Shrew, for example), and I imagine it would be entirely possible to replace several disparate cites to a single work that covers both. Thus I would suggest:
#Convert to Author (Date) citations and split into separate sections for notes and cited sources, so that each work only appears once in the sources even if the short refs cites different pages
#Look for opportunities to replace multiple cites to individual works with a single work that covers several cites
I can do the grunt work (no guarantee on how fast, note) on converting the cites, and at least a first pass on any obvious opportunities for combining cites.
Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? Interjections? Poetry? --Xover (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much of a good thing 

message: A recent essay in Huntington Library Quarterly, "Did Shakespeare Use a Manuscript of Samuel Daniel's Civil Wars to Write Richard?, identifies an early manuscript of the first two books of Daniel's poem as a possible Shakespeare source, suggesting an earlier possible date for Shakespeare's play. The manuscript includes a never-printed stanza that has parallels to Shakespeare's description of Richard entering London. If no one objects, I would like to add that essay to the references in this article and note the possibility of an earlier date for Richard II in the body of the article. Musophilus (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go for it. I haven't read the article myself, although I was aware of it, so I'll be interested to see the argument. For future reference, though, you don't really need to ask for approval to add stuff to the article. Work away. Bertaut (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Manuscript of [[Samuel Daniel]]'s ''Civil Wars'' and ''Richard II'' 

message: In the list of Complete Shakespeare editions, shouldn't the Pelican one by noted as being edited by Alfred Harbage? At university that's the name that was used to refer to this version of the collection, rather than those two names listed here. I have heard it called The Harbage Shakespeare interchangeably with Pelican Shakespeare. 23skidoo (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can remember, didn't Harbage only edit individual editions? I don't recall him editing a collected works (although I'm going only on memory so I could be wrong). Irrespective of that though, the Complete Pelican referred to in the article was only published in 2002, with newly edited editions of each play. The general editors are Stephen Orgel and A.R. Braunmuller. Bertaut (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelican Shakespeare