Talk:Augustan drama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Augustan drama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 12, 2006. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
It is ready. Any passing horseman may nominate it for Featured Article status, if she or he wishes, but I vowed not to do so, myself, after the monster of Augustan literature. For whatever it's worth, this article pursues an independent thesis from that. Instead of trying to provide a strict narrative of "then this happened, then this, then this," it tries to show the contours of a dramatic evolution from courtliness in the Restoration to largely vaccuous domestic drama in the 19th century. How is it that "there is no Augustan drama?" How did this amazingly potent dramatic tradition of the Restoration give way to 'amusing' plays and the adventures and further adventures of Pollyanna? What knocked the wind out of the sails, and why did the audiences turn away from a drama that we now consider great to embrace a type of drama we now consider insipid? If there is no right or wrong about it, what history and fashion conspired to make this happen? That's what this article attempts. I think it's a good survey of "this then this then this" as well, but it's not serving the same master as Augustan literature. Geogre 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Before you ask...
Since this article is about to go on the main page, I might as well address a concern that scholars might have. I treat Fielding as a Tory. Martin Battestin says he was a Whig. Well, Fielding was a Whig, at least nominally, but he was a Patriot Whig, if anything, and he was pretty clearly against Walpole. I know that he went to Tom Thumb with Walpole, etc. (the evidence presented in Battestin's biography of Fielding), but that's awfully shallow proof, if you ask me, compared with the text itself. After all, John Gay was pleased enough that Walpole liked The Beggar's Opera before he hated it. No author would have refused or said, "Ummm, Bob, that's you up there." I found nothing in Battestin's biography to convince me that Fielding was very Whiggish when he was a Whig, and his satirical gambits, like Henry Carey's, reiterate the Tory points. If there is more proof besides that presented in Battestin's biography, I'm open to hear it, and, of course, anyone may edit this article (the beauty of Wikipedia), but I was not ignorant of the view that Fielding was a Walpole-embracing Whig. I just don't buy it even a little bit. Geogre 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted?
I'm assuming the article that goes with this talk page should exist, but right at the moment it doesn't. SS451 07:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
But now it's back. Well, good. SS451 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- That was me, sorry. I tempdeleted it in order to remove some very egregious edit summary vandalism from the history--didn't want it sitting there decorating the history with shit and piss and ...well, never mind. Sorry for the surprise. I hurried as much as I could, and I think I got it done in under a minute. Bishonen | talk 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
- Yeah, it was just very weird to see the featured article of the day as a red link. Glad it's all worked out. SS451 07:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sic transit gloria mundi
And this article goes off the main page, too. Now, either our vandals are on school break, or this topic finally bored them more than any other, including Ormulum, as it got remarkably few defacings. As ever, my thanks to all the sharp eyed and dedicated reverters of vandalism. Geogre 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Third-night take"?
What is it? The article references it several times, but I couldn't find an explanation in the 'pedia.
Could anybody give a shor explanation? -- Syzygy 09:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is discussed further on, but could be explained earlier: "Additionally, prior to 1737 the economic motivations for dramatists were vast. A playwright received the house take of the third night of a play. This could be a very large amount of money, and it would be renewed with each season (depending upon arrangements). Thus, John Gay grew wealthy with The Beggar's Opera." -- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an editing mistake. This article began as a piece of Augustan literature, where I explained it before I referred to it confidently. When I finished it as a stand-alone article, I had, in the interim, done a string of articles on particular plays, where, again, I explained it. Therefore, I simply forgot that I hadn't explained it here. My apologies. I should explain it at first occurrence and will in a moment. Geogre 11:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
