Talk:Mary Sidney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I'm worried about this passage:

"A close examination of her writing style clearly demonstrates that they are two different writers. Mary Sidney is predominently a religious writer, interested in human and divine learning and spirituality in all its aspects, while William Shakespeare's focus is on the human personality, deception, love, passion and on "the surface of the earth". Shakespeare's main inspiration was Ovid, but both authors share a deep love for the Bible, for poetry, beauty and the Classics."

Surely writing style is much different from the subject or topic about which one writes, yet no citation or evidence is given in support of the claim that there is a difference in writing style, but only a difference in focus. It seems that if one were to write under a pseudonym and also under one's real name, one could very well be doing it because one wants to be publicly associated with some of the works and not with others (i.e., Sidney could have wanted to be recognized as a religious writer, and not as the largely political writer Shakespeare was). Couldn't it be that Sidney did this intentionally? This is far from my area of research, but I'd like to see some better citations and a clearer NPOV. KSchutte 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Schutte, Thanks for the comments. I have clarified on the new updated page that proof of Mary Sidney^s authorship of Shakespeare's plays and poems lies with proponents of this theory. I have not read any Shakespearean scholar who supports this idea. Can you suggest one? They recognise that though Shakespeare is extremely "self-effacing", he has a "presiding" personality, which readers recognise. There has been extensive computer analysis of his language. Mary Sidney's language must reflect that "exact" profile. I would recommend Caroline Spurgeon's book on Shakespeare's imagery, in which she compares the imagery of Bacon and Shakespeare and demonstates that the latter's fits a very distinctive "profile". Shakespeare's imagery is extremely concrete, drawn from the small kitchen and garden of Henley Street in Stratford. It is also related to transformations, movement or speed. Bacon's images are cerebral, static and abstrac, in harmony with his more aristocratic early upbringing.
I am just setting up web pages which I will link to this page. One will be to my modernisation of Mary Sidney's translation of "A Discourse of Life and Death", a Protestant philosophical essay, on the frustrations of this life, and the other to the last Act from Sidney's play on Mark Antonie. I think that will convince you and others that the "presiding" voice of Shakespeare is missing from her excellent, passionate work. Her placing and choice of adjectives is unlike his e.g. he would never refer to "boiling tears"!
Will proponents of the "Sidney is Shakespeare" theory produce evidence of her Shakesperian language profile and her "Shakesperean" use of imagery?
Interestingly, there is a line from Emilia Lanier's poem "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" (1611) in a section on Mary Sidney, which seems, tantalisingly, to suggest that Mary Sidney gave "light" to the truly famous, even mentioning the words "the globe".
"This nymph quoth he, great Pembroke hight by name
Sister to valiant Sidney, whose clear light
Gives light to all who tread true paths of fame,
Who in the globe of heaven doth shine so bright"
Regards, Alison J. Bailey 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Alison Bailey
I think your changes resolve my complaint. I look forward to seeing further scholarship on the comparison between these two figures. Even the possibility is fun to think about.  ;) KSchutte 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)