Talk:Shakespeare's will

Would he know he was dying?

The statement he drafted his will "probably knowing he was dying" seems to contradict the statement in his own will that he was "in perfect health & memory, God be praised". Wills of that period were sometimes made with testators proclaiming of sound mind but not body if they were ill. May his last illness have arisen following the draft of the will? His death was reputedly caused by a fever after drinking so it may well have been a rapid illness - compare with experience of cholera deaths in the 19th century and the post WWI influenza pandemic. There could have been a painless incubation period preceding the illness and late diagnoses would not have been uncommon in this respect.Cloptonson (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Shakespeare's Signet Ring article

I removed the link because it is false to claim that it is known to be Shakespeare's ring. ~~The ring of that article is merely a version that varies from the original ring. Replicas have turned up near the church in the past.~~ This article (on the will) has greater import that the one on the ring, so while the article on the ring might be allowed to stretch the truth -- the claim needs greater consideration or scrutiny if it is going to be part of this article. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I added it because that article mentions the will and linking it here claims nothing of the sort. It's just an article title, like Shakespeare's Birthplace, Chinese checkers etc.

But interested to see WP:RS on your statement "The ring of that article is merely a version that varies from the original ring. Replicas have turned up near the church in the past." This "original ring" sounds fun. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the ring is about a particular object, which is shown in a photo. The article's title claims that ring is indeed Shakespeare's ring, but that's misleading — it cannot be said to be Shakespeare’s ring, not without some kind of proof that can make that connection and also be accepted by scholars, reliable sources, or a consensus of scholars. (The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust source only says "possibly".) It may or may not be his ring, or it may be a replica, or a version that varies from the original. If this ring is a replica, it wouldn’t be the first — the article mentions other replicas, including one apparently owned by David Garrick in the 1770s (according to the sources in the article). I think a lot of people would be thrilled to be able to say (along with the title) "That is Shakespeare’s ring." But of course, "William Henry Ireland" catered to thrilling people with his "discoveries". Pardon me, Gråbergs Gråa Sång for being slow to respond, and for saying things you already know. You seem to be a scholar yourself. — GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are you ok with having it in the "See also" section here written

Shakespeare's signet ring, ring that may have belonged to William Shakespeare

? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know any source that suggested the SBT ring is a replica of something. Replica of what? What "original"? What source talks of an "original" ring of Shakespeare? I guess it's your own musings. Haven't even seen any source suggesting the SBT ring is a hoax, as in not an Elizabethan era gold ring. We'll disagree to disagree that a WP-article title "claims" anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with that article on the ring, is that the title makes a false statement. I think strict accuracy in Shakespearean studies or scholarship is essential. If an accurate title cannot be agreed on, then the article may not be worth keeping, and perhaps shouldn't be promoted with links. It could be a sub-section somewhere. I think it's too strong for WP to say that it "could be Shakespeare's ring" on this article (Shakespeare's will) -- it might be, or it might not be. I think we agree that the SBT ring, the ring in the photo, as far as anyone knows could be any number of things. Yes? It could be Shakespeare's or someone else's ring whose initials are WS. It could be a replica of something, I suppose, or it might not be. It is certainly an object that encourages speculation. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång - I suddenly see the point you’re onto — at the top, my second sentence appears to be saying that the SBT ring is a replica. It appears that part of the rough draft of my comment got only partially deleted when I went to post it, which garbled things. Sorry about the confusion. I’m going to try to cross it out. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the strikethrough, your OP makes more sense to me now. I disagree with you on mentioning the ring in "See also" for this article so we're deadlocked there (I don't intend to revert your revert since while I think it's a constructive addition, it's also a minor issue, which of course will not stop us from spending large amounts of text on it, it's the Wikipedian way), if other editors have opinions on that they will tell us. If you start an afd on Shakespeare's signet ring, it will be discussed on the afd page. Unless other editors bothers to comment, I think we're done here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and GümsGrammatiçus, I'll bother with some short comments.

. I think there are three separate issues here. The first one is whether the article Shakespeare's signet ring in se is worth to keep; the second, whether the present title of the article should be changed; and the third one whether there should be a link to that article from this one. GümsGrammatiçus: You mix these questions, and actually seem to argue for `orphanting' the article in order to make it easier to argue for a deletion, in case you cannot achieve a title name change. If I've misunderstood you, please clarify what you meant! If I did understand you correctly, I disagree strongly. IMHO, in general, whether or not a topic is of sufficient encyclopedian interest for the wp is completely separate from the question about an appropriate name of an article about that topic; and removing relevant links to an article in order to promote its deletion is unacceptable. I've read both yours and the contrary arguments about the name question on Talk:Shakespeare's signet ring, and find some value in both; but that discussion should be kept there, not spill over here. (About the risk of confusing the readers of this article: I think that Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggested formulation lessens that risk sufficiently.)
To give a drastic and exaggerated example: If some wp editors with Baconists sympathies should succeed in acquiring sufficient support for changing the title Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship to Francis Bacon's authorship of the works sometimes acribed to Shakespeare or something equally ridiculous and completely misleading, I would be rather upset; but I by no means would accept the argument that such an idiocy would be a reason to consider Baconism as suddenly becoming a too uninteresting topic for the wp. Rather, an appearence of a vigorous bunch of modern Baconists would make the topic in se more interesting, not less.
. On the other hand, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I do not understand why the signet ring article should be a more relevant See also subject than any other property related article in Category:William Shakespeare or its subcategories. The will article does not seem to mention signet rings; the signet ring article discusses whether such a signet ring could be a gift or be acquired by other means, but not really what happened with it after William's death. I also know now other reason to single out the signet ring (even if its authenticity had been established beyond reasonable doubt) for a See also link from the will article. Therefore, I'd disrecommend linking to that article, not because of its title, but since I do not find that link relevant. JoergenB (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, the reason I added it is because the ring article mentions this article, there is an idea that Shakespeare could have lost his seal ring and the will had to be a little changed because of it. Minor, but I went with it, the See also section here isn't exactly overcrowded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoergenB The title of the WP article (Shakespeare's signet ring) indicates the ring belonged to Shakespeare. That claim is not supported by reliable sources and cannot be verified. The fact that it comes from Wikipedia, which has a reputation for not allowing unsupported, unverified content, gives the appearance that Wikipedia supports the false or misleading claim by publishing it. Deliberately making false or misleading claims regarding Shakespeare should not be tolerated by Wikipedia. The article itself contradicts its own title. Shakespearean scholarship and studies should try to be accurate, considering that there are mountains of excellent sources, and considering that (on the other hand) there have been plenty of forgeries and false claims. Also I think it goes too far and say why Shakespeare changed his will, sources can only speculate. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GümsGrammatiçus: You again are arguing about the title of the ring article. I think your remarks are rather relevant as regards that title, but have no direct bearing on whether a link to it should be included from the will article. Please, treat the separate issues separately! Your concerns about reability are just relevant to the extent that a link (whether a See also link, a text link, or a link from within a footnote) should be written in a way that does not convey the reader of this article the false impression that the authenticicity of the origin of the ring is ensured; but I think that Gråbergs Gråa Sång's revised suggestion supra (which you have not yet commented on) does this.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Oh, you are referring to the Speculation section? I missed that one. I agree that this is relevant, and that, as you stated, that may merit a See also in an article without any. However, as I said, I missed the connection with the relevant part of the signet ring article; and I suspect that others would, too.

One way to overcome this might be to make a See also link direct to Shakespeare's signet ring#Speculation. However, I think that See also's rarely refer to article sections. Another possibility might be instead to include a rather brief comment about the striking out of and seal into the will article, with a mention of the speculation that this might be related to Shakespeare loosing his signet ring, with both a link to that Speculation section and the the three sources you provided, either directly in the text itself, or in a footnote to the will article. JoergenB (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In-text mention is an option, but IMO somewhat WP:UNDUE in this article, it's very speculative, though well sourced (that the speculation exists). MOS:SEEALSO recommends that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent", so one option is to try to do that, something like

Shakespeare's signet ring, ring that may have belonged to William Shakespeare, and speculated to have caused a slight change in the will

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another option is to put

under "Context". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoergenB, this article (on Shakespeare's will) should not include or promote any misleading or false claims regarding Shakespeare or his will — including the idea that that ring was in fact Shakespeare's ring. I appreciate your contributing your ideas, but I hope you’ll allow me to disagree with some of your characterizations of what other editors are saying, and with some of your opinions of what you deem pertinent, and of your separating the title of an article from the article itself. The title of an article is crucial and essential to the article. Every title in WP can be seen, in a way, as the hypothesis of the descriptions that follow. If you’ve got a title that makes a false statement, it skews the rest. We should consider and give a fair hearing to all that’s being said (above on this talk page) to see if a solution can be found. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC) I appreciate Gråbergs Gråa Sång’s annotation idea, but, still, as I said above, this article (Shakespeare’s will) should absolutely not include or promote any misleading or false claims. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GümsGrammatiçus: I'm sorry if I have mischaracterised your statements in some way. I've believed that I understand them, but disagree about whether the title and the link questions should be separated. I still get the impression that you mean that any link to the signet ring article would be harmful, while it retains its present title, since this would "promote" an article with a misleading title, whether or not the risks for misunderstanding are eliminated from the will article. Is this a correct summary of your opinion? If so, I don't think we get further on that issue.

Apart from that, all of us seem to agree that no link or mention of the signet ring speculation in the will article should be allowed to convey false impressions here about this theory being more supported by scolars than it is, if it be mentioned at all.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Well, I think that just mentioning the deletion of and seal is not speculative and nor in se undue in the will article. However, as a stand-alone fact it is rather minor, whence possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applicable. The speculation is of course the two-step interpretation that and seal was struck due to Shakespeare's signet ring being lost, and that this signet ring may be the one appearing in 1810.

(I'm not good at palaeographics; but after viewing the picture of the last will page I got the same impression as E. K. Chambers (if I got the preamble of the will transcription right), namely, that the original text just had "put my seale", but that "seale" was struck out and "hand" added (actually, above the struck word). However, of course, we should avoid our own interpretations of the primary sources.) The transcription of Shakespeare's will from Internet Shakespeare Editions mentions that pages 2 and 3 of the will contain numerous alterations, of which some should be due to actual changes of Shakespeare's wish between January and March, but others just may reflect the January original being written in some haste (and thus implicitly being error prone). This means that the secretary may have written ...put my seal out of habit, and first afterwards checked whether Shakespeare planned to have the document sealed, or to sign it by hand (or both).

I suggest anyhow adding a sentence about the existence of other minor changes of the will, at least partially probably due more to the scribe's error, with an appropriate reference. Possibly, there could also be a footnote to that new sentence, where the stiking of seal and the speculations by a few authors about the relations to the modern signet ring, very clearly stressing both "speculations" and "a few". JoergenB (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for "appropriate references", vide infra. JoergenB (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think is reasonable, but I vide no references infra. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoergenB Interestingly, I found another fringe-y speculation on the will, first paragraph at Shakespeare_authorship_question#Circumstances_of_Shakespeare's_death. Given the topic, there may be more wild ideas out there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these comments are off topic, we need to stay focused (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Perhaps you could open another section? - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, paragraph has been re-written since above post:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that this article should state that the ring was in fact Shakespeare's. IMO, you are inching towards WP:STONEWALLING. In a something of something, I've WP:APPNOTEd at [2][3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoergenB, you ask if your summary of my opinion is in my opinion correct, so to answer you I’d have to say, No, it isn’t — not quite. But I’m not sure a summary is called for, since I expressed my opinion in fewer words immediately above your summary (beginning “JoergenB, this article…” and ending about 17 words later). It’s an important WP principle that states that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability). That would include any claim that that ring indeed belonged to Shakespeare. Both theories, that it was his and that it wasn’t, seem correct and are not controversial. Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång for posting notice of this discussion on the other pages — good idea. It would be good to hear thoughts from others. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chambers reference.

When the late User:Paul Barlow started this article, he added several references to "Chambers 1930, II: pp. 169–80". They appeared in a format which is usual if you also add a Sources section, where there is a full reference to Chambers' opus. Unfortunately, Barlow seems not to have made such a full reference; and now it is too late to ask him about it. Nevertheless, even without knowing very much about this field, I'm fairly convinced that Barlow was referring to E. K. Chambers (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (I found no link to this work from the Chambers article, but one to the first volume, which included a Content for the second one. Thus, I know that Chambers indeed devoted pp. 169–180 of volume 2 to "Shakespeare's Will". Moreover, I followed the external link Transcript of Shakespeare's will, from Internet Shakespeare Editions, and they give this work of E. K. Chambers as source.) Hence, I think that Barlow's vague reference could be replaced by this more precise one. However, it would be better if this was made by someone with an access to this volume; and such an editor might also be able to find information about the ISBN ~~and the publisher~~. JoergenB (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find vol 2 either, but there's probably other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something on the WP Library has it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that there is a similar problem with another Barlow reference. He wrote "On 25 March Shakespeare made a number of alterations, probably because he was dying and because of particular concerns regarding Thomas Quiney", with a reference to "Schoenbaum 1977, p. 297", which he never clarified. @Cloptonson: You later added a reference to Schoenbaum, Samuel (1987). William Shakespeare: A Complete Documentary Life. Oxford University Press. pp. 301–03. ISBN 0-19-505161-0. Do you (still) have easy access to this work? If so, could you please check its page 297, in order to see if Barlow's "1977" reasonably is a misprint for "1987"? JoergenB (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover, that sounds like your kind of code. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare : a compact documentary life (1987), does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life was first published in 1977 as a more practical (and cheaper) companion to his 1975 William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (which is a huge honkin' brute of a book, full of full-page facsimiles photographed anew for that book). It was issued in a revised edition in 1987, which is why there's some confusion about when it was published. I have the 1987 edition and can confirm the p. 297 citation. The essence is what's given in footnote 19 on Thomas Quiney (footnote 18 and the "William Shakespeare's last will and testament" section are also elucidating context).

Schoenbaum's Compact Documentary Life and Chambers' Facts and Problems are both, still, standard texts in the field. Both have the distinction of being rather thorough and disinclined to flights of fancy, and while they may have been superseded on some details they can usually be relied upon for any fact that they cover. Xover (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]