Talk:Edmund Kean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Edmund Kean is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Sword

No mention of Byron's sword?

A substantial chunk of Ron Rosenbaum's new book, The Shakespeare Wars, is given to a description of Byron's reaction to seeing Kean in a Shakespearean performance. Byron was so carried away he had a sword made, and engraved, just to present it to Kean. That sword became famous, as a token that its possessor was the greatest Shakespearean actor of his time. Gielgud had the sword for 15 years, and passed it on to Laurence Olivier.

This sword ought to be mentioned in the Kean article, no? Anyway, I'll work something up soon if no one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurio (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 November 2006

[edit] Adultery & Divorce

We have (in the 8th of currently 15 'graphs)

In Switzerland, he met Charlotte Cox, the wife of a London city alderman. Kean was sued by Cox for adultery on his return to England. Damages of £800 was awarded against him in the presence of a jury in just 10 minutes. The London Times launched a violent attack on him. The adverse decision in the divorce case of Cox v. Kean on 17 January 1825 caused his wife to leave him, ....

but

American readers at least need it explained what "divorce case of Cox v. Kean" means, since in US divorce cases are spouse vs. spouse, e.g. Kramer vs. Kramer.
Similarly, "sued ... for adultery" is at least odd to American ears: adultery was (but at least in practice no longer is) a criminal (as opposed to a civil) matter, except when it is a ground for suing one's own spouse for divorce. The (civil) complaint in US against one's cuckolder was, at least until late 20th century, "alienation of affections",

a tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage,

which i think basically provides(/d) revenge on the third party via money damages.
Finally, "in the presence of a jury in just 10 minutes" not only makes no sense to my Yank ears, but it also must be making a distinction that is contrary to what i believe about jury procedure: if a jury is present, that is for them to make at least a yes/no decision, or to say they can't. Can this be anything other than a perverse or brain-dead way of saying "The jury found against him in 10 minutes" and that they or the judge awarded £800? WTF is wrong w/ EB, anyway?