i don't really understand the metonymy distinction, but i appreciate the attempt at clarification. it sounds like either a $50 word for figurative speech/language or metaphor. in your example it suggests shakespeare is similar to his works if not the works themselves, and so his works are a method with which to observe him. reading his works is like reading him; reading him via his works.

...

webster was a politician who wanted to fork american to be different than english. and he tried things like changing the pronuciation of "glass-ier" to "gla(de)-shire" [ or from (IPA pronunciations) glαsiæ to glə∫uɹ ] because he thought that it would confuse geologists. and by extension keep american knowledge from going abroad.

webster (to me) is a SJW. and he was actually the person who initiated my distrust in lexicographies, and he showed that with enough bank you could print misinformation. he showed that if you could get a hard structure like congress to purchase many copies of a product you make, for schools, that you could use the soft power created by the creation of the product in business to influence much of the education system.

he was the more competant and effective version of that hysterical red scare guy.

the general abstraction (since that is getting long) is the pressense of extremely biased and misinforming material, including people with extremist views, will bias the modal opinions of the demographic. as such the more ways to exert power, through curtailing curriculum or cause your opinions to be the reference material and implicit fact, the more likely the next generation will contend your views.

it is why the 2nd wavers care whether their opposition is "not in education, entertainment, or technology".

webster was so prolific as a dictionary, that his hope of forking american and british english backfired. the british began adopting his spellings and definitions. there are a variety of biographies on his life and philosophy, if you aren't in highschool they might be good reads.