Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boydell Shakespeare Gallery

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Boydell Shakespeare Gallery

This article on an eighteenth-century project that was dedicated to promoting Shakespeare both through art and through a new edition of the Bard's plays has been quite difficult to write. The project covers a gallery of paintings, a folio of prints, and an edition of the plays. The article has been peer reviewed and critiqued on the talk page. Rupert Clayton has provided valuable assistance, particularly with regards to the gallery building itself. One hurdle to be overcome in writing this article is the source limitations: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. I am not sure this issue has arisen at FAC before, but I wanted to make reviewers aware of it. I know this issue has arisen elsewhere on Wikipedia and I wasn't sure what the ultimate consensus was regarding the use of dissertations. I believe that since there is so little scholarship on this topic and since these dissertations are cited by experts in the field, their use is justified. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Watching this since since it's inception last November, and am impressed with its development since. Its great. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment - it's excellent work, but it seems a little confused over what the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was. The lead says it was was a collection of pictures...focused around an illustrated edition of William Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery; later on we are told Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays, a folio of prints from the gallery... and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang; and then we get The "magnificent and accurate" Shakespeare edition which Boydell began in 1786 was to be the focus of his enterprise. The second explanation treating it as a "project" would seem better to me (after all, Boydell published other works "From the Shakespeare Gallery" that weren't anything to do with Shakespeare). Yomangani^talk 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Boydell started by thinking that the edition and its illustrations would be the focus but then the gallery took over the project. How best to make this clear? The initial statements attempt to describe what the gallery is and later the articles tries to describe the changing focus of the project. Any help on this would be appreciated. (Note: all of the works associated with the Shakespeare Gallery were on Shakespearean subjects, as far as I know.) Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe just reword the opening paragraph, as the rest isn't contradictory. I left a suggestion—very much a draft—on the talk page. (With regard to the note: he published Hogarth's Works in 1790 from the Shakespeare Gallery—admittedly there were a few Shakespearean scenes in there, but it wasn't chiefly a Shakespeare set). Yomangani^talk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure the Hogarth's Works was connected with the Gallery and not a separate project? During the 1790s the Boydells engaged in several other projects. If this is part of the Gallery, it should be part of the article. Do you have any references for that? Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• See new first paragraph of lead. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The publisher info reads thus:The Original Works of William Hogarth. Sold by John and Josiah Boydell, at the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall-Mall, and No. 90, Cheapside, London, 1790. I suppose you could argue they weren't publishing it as a "Shakespeare Gallery" edition, but it probably rates a mention. It's reproduced in Hogarth's Graphic Works, 3rd edition, p.20. (The plates that Boydell bought from Jane Hogarth were sold off in the auction too). Yomangani^talk 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you can use that as evidence since the Boydell publishing firm was located at that building throughout all of the years of the Shakespeare enterprise and published other books under that address (as the article notes). I think that is just advertising for the Shakespeare Gallery embedded in publishing information. Moreover, everything Boydell owned was sold off in the auction. I think we need much more solid evidence than this that Hogarth's Prints was considered part of the Shakespeare enterprise. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the published works I have read on the Gallery, so I am reticent to include it on such slim evidence. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with not including it; the "at the Shakespeare Gallery" was what I wanted to point out, and the new lead makes it clear it is more than just a collection of paintings (the mention of the plates being sold off was just for colour. I think it is a sad twist that Hogarth got the whole Shakespeare painting thing rolling and Boydell ends up having to flog his plates off to finance the white elephant of the gallery). Anyway, you've addressed my one niggle, so I'm supporting. Have you considered using Hogarth's David Garrick as Richard III in place of the scene from The Tempest? - you could illustrate two sub-topics with a single image (but maybe that's over the top). Yomangani^talk 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I used to have that image in the article when the Shakespeare section was longer. :) Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links and sources look good. I don't have an issue with using a dissertation, myself. In medieval history, it isn't that unknown to cite dissertations and theses. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the dissertations, considering they appear to comply with WP:SPS: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. But. My long experience at WP:FAR tells me that we don't want to be chasing this down five years from now if Awadewit is gone from Wiki and someone questions those sources (it is such a shame to have to defeature articles because no one is around who can locate the original info, and it happens frequently). It would be helpful to leave a record of the authors' credentials and publications on the FAC, where they can easily be tracked down five years from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The two major dissertations used have both been published by Garland Press and would be available in any major university research library. I'm not sure what credentials and publications you want me to list here - if these authors had gone on to write books and articles on their dissertation topics, I would have used those. They did not. I have already listed the reasons I used the dissertations. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If they would be widely available, then there's no issue (that wasn't clear from your first statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment on this... I'd say a dissertation (even unpublished) is absolutely a reliable source. And North American dissertations, at least, are easy enough to get hold of (increasingly as online download) from UMI (though that link may require a subscription) in Michigan. In fact, here's mine! If you order it from them, I get a (very small) royalty! Go on, you know you want to!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Certainly meets FA standard, although I would hope it can be broadened as per my earlier comments on the talk page at some point. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to address those. I added a paragraph or so about the engravings from the catalogue I obtained and more material on the artistic legacy of the Gallery's works. Unfortunately, the articles in the catalogue discuss many of the paintings individually. It is a good resource for the artists' individual articles, I think. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I wonder if you could get Tony1 to give this the once-over. I felt that the prose was awkward at times, and though I tried to do some copy-editing I didn't have time or energy to do more. (Probably the same for Tony1, sadly). A couple of quick examples: —This is part of a comment by Jbmurray (of 10:19, April 25, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

  "the theatre was rebounding" Strange word, and "rebounding" from what?

Explaining the decline of the theatre after the Restoration would be outside the scope of the article, I think. What do you think? Reworded: According to Shakespeare scholar Gary Taylor, although the theatre was undergoing a revival, it was not profitable for dramatists, and thus very few good tragedies were written during this time. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Shakespeare's reputation profited from this dearth, for his were the only decent ones playing." "Dearth" and "decent" both seem odd choices.

Reworded: Shakespeare's reputation profited from this lack: his were the only good dramas playing. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• NB was Shakespeare really promoted as British rather than (more specifically) English?

• Absolutely - Shakespeare helped bring the disparate parts of British culture together. Britons united around Shakespeare as a great national writer. Rising "British" nationalism specifically was tied to him. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Shakespeare would have considered himself an Englishman, and "Britain" wasn't yet formed in the sense that people would apply to the time. Furthermore, most English would not consider themselves "British" in the 18th century, nor in the 19th century. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about what Shakespeare considered himself. We are talking about his reputation in the eighteenth century. Those are very different concepts. There are many books about the rise of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. One is Linda Colley's Britons (this is one of the standard narratives of the period). This article is based on well-known Shakespearean scholarship that documents the rise of Shakespeare's reputation as part of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. See Gary Taylor's book (in the bib), for example. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Awadewit's answer. Mine was a query from a non-expert. (And I don't think anything in the article needs to be changed on this point.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with her answer. I have never, never, in my experience found anyone who deemed Shakespeare as British in the 18th century. He has always been called an Englishman. Most of those who lived in England called themselves English. British was a colonial term. It was a term despised by most of the people. Most of the 18th century writers, even in the colonies, titled themselves "Englishman". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The only book I have that covers this is Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, which is about the history of Shakespeare's reputation. Bate says: "conceived as the foundation of a British school of 'history painting', the Boydell paintings were intended to offer a more idealized and heroic repertoire of Shakespearean images than were available in the theatre"; Bate also suggests that "Shakespeare rose to pre-eminence in the period 1660–1830 on the back of the British Empire, the strength of the middle class and the reaction against the French Revolution". This is so close to what is in the article that I had to check that Bate wasn't the reference. qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Qp's quote speaks for itself. Its conclusions match the other scholarship I have read on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Qp's quote only proves that scholars now use the term. Not that the term was used back then. There is a huge difference, and anachronism is another word for wrong. By calling him British, you would be appealing to a Scottish sentiment, which was not what those of the 18th century would have done, unless they were Scottish. That is a fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Qp's source is wrong. "Great Britain" was established by the Act of Union in 1707. That means that the source claims the name 47 years before it actually existed. Ottava Rima (talk)

(Outdent) If you look at the Shakespeare page, you see - "Joseph Addison ("Among the English, Shakespeare has incomparably excelled all others")", which is just one example of him being described in his nature setting. There is a tendency in the modern period to anachronistically deem things "Britain" when they are really English, and those in the 18th and 19th century were very aware, because the English did not want to be Scottish or Irish. They were English. Here is what Samuel Johnson stated in his preface to Shakespeare: "The English nation, int he time of Shakespeare, was yet struggling to emerge from barbarity." Not British. English. He identified him as English. I can go on. There are many other 18th century writers that identified Shakespeare as English. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These are irrelevant pieces of evidence. We are not talking about Shakespeare in his natural setting or his own time. We are talking about how British nationalism emerged in the eighteenth century. Shakespeare's reputation, long after he was dead, is a part of that development. I have directed you to a book on British nationalism and Shakespeare's reputation. Qp has offered a quotation supporting this position. Shakespeare, in his own time, was undoubtedly English. That is not the point up for debate. The point is that in the eighteenth century Shakespeare began to represent a British identity. That is the scholarship that we have pointed you to states. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

British nationalism? emerging? This article has nothing to do with British nationalism, nor is there anything to suggest that Shakespeare had anything to do with such. He was viewed by those of the 18th century as English, not British. Anachronism is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's claims are based on the best scholarship. If you want to dispute it, you must also use scholarship to back up your claims. When you have listed the works by eighteenth-century historians and Shakespearean scholars you have consulted that verify your position, I will respond. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but thats not how verifiability works. I have already proven that the sources provided were wrong by a simple comparison of dates that show they are based on false premises. I have even cited contemporaries that used "English". You have provided nothing. Verifiability is against you. Also, when you say "British", you would then have to prove where Scottish people felt represented by Shakespeare, or that Scottish scholars have viewed Shakespeare as part of their country and not as an Englishman. That is, after all, the definition of "British", which requires Scottish and English combined, in the 18th century.Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

* For those interested: "Shakespeare in the Periodicals, 1700-1740: A Study of the Growth of a Knowledge of the Dramatist in the Eighteenth Century" by George Winchester Stone, Jr. (Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 220-232) examines Shakespeare as viewed by the English (not British).

• "Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics" by Antony Taylor (The Historical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 357-379) says "Through this agitation a link into the memories of the national past, Shakespeare's England, and the politics and theatricality of the popular platform is identified" and continues to talk about Shakespeare and England, not Britain. For example: "illustrate the tensions between elite and plebian radical readings of the national past, and of the literary landscape of England", not Britain.
• "The Making of the English Canon" by Jonathan Brody Kramnick ( PMLA, Vol. 112, No. 5 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1087-1101) as you can guess, it goes on to talk about how he was viewed as English. It also goes on to talk about how three people (Shakespeare, Milton, and Spencer) were viewed as the English canon between 1740-1760. This is not British, but English.
• "The Genesis and Character of English Nationalism" by Hans Kohn (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 69-94) can you guess what this one argues?

I could go on, I have at least 40 articles saying the same thing over and over.

There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit. Shakespeare has been viewed as English, not British. He is an English bard, not a British. This was true in the 18th century, especially with its utter prevalent dislike of Englishmen to be termed anything but "English". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

First, these are articles. I read entire books that cover the seventeenth, eighteenth, and some of the nineteenth centuries when researching this topic. The books are not limited to small portions of time. Shakespeare himself was English: that is not in dispute. The point the article is making is that his reputation, beginning in the eighteenth century, was a British one. He was viewed as a national icon. Considering I have consulted the best works on this topic, not a random collection of articles, my level of certainty regarding this conclusion is still high. Thanks again.

"There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit." - This is untrue: See the sources cited in the article and the source quoted above by Qp. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture." British culture was changing, rather than Britain itself?

  "Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays; a folio of prints from the gallery (originally intended to be a folio of prints from the edition of Shakespeare's plays); and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang." The second element of the list assumes the gallery, which is only in fact mentioned subsequently, as the third element.

  "Even the paper quality was extraordinarily high: Boydell chose to use Whatman paper." Given that Whatman paper's a redlink, it might be worth explaining what's so special about it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of my sources say. History of paper is not something I'm all that keen to investigate. Anyone up for that? Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No. But perhaps this could be finessed; at present it looks as though the readers should be aware that "Whatman paper" is something special. In fact, I'd just be tempted to delete the second half of the sentence, in that none of us knows what it means really, and nobody's about to write the "Whatman paper" article. I'm happy enough to know that the paper quality was high. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a bit of a dabbler in inks, I can add that there's no mystery about Whatman paper, which is still available and often used for ink drawing and watercolour. The paper is thick, has a woven surface, and makes you want to stroke it. I daresay it would make a dull subject for a Wikipedia article, but I think the red link is justified. qp10qp (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Google has plenty like this. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's between me, Johnbod, and (never underestimate him) that punk Yomangani to get this done first! qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

consider yourself volunteered! Nb High Sheriff of Kent, East Malling Stream,Maidstone and The Weald (UK Parliament constituency) and others from a WP search. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather jibed at "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture" too, especially as the same remark was made in the Tale of a Tub, I seem to recall, relating to a century earlier. I'm not sure the Gallery came at an especially rapid phase of this change - before cheap paper, and long after the target market for the various manifestations of the Gallery were well used to print in many forms. Perhaps best cut. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire eighteenth century was part of the transformation from oral to print. That statement is sourced to a very well-respected scholar - do you want more examples of such statements? I can find them. That is an accurate statement. Tony1 doesn't do copy editing at FAC, as far as I know. I will try to find someone else and I will work on the issues you mention. Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And the 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th too; I can't really see much relevance to this subject. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to find more specific descriptions of how the 18th century differed from the others. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to offer some more suggestions a little later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Mike Christie and Qp to help out with the copy editing. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit done. qp10qp (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for Ottava Rima. I should say I find your interventions hard to read. I try to assume good faith, but your stubbornness in sticking to your position despite apparent consensus against you is notable. I have half-wondered if you were a sock of Awadewit's, cunningly designed to win her sympathy and to ensure that other editors do not ask pesky questions about, for instance, the difference between England and Britain. No, no, of course I do not seriously think that. But you might consider that your interventions could end up rather counter-productive? Please note that this is a comment and an observation only, and that I don't want to sidetrack the discussion about the article itself by initiating a long conversation. Feel free to agree or to disagree with my observation; I will not be arguing the point. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus against me? What consensus? Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Multiple voices voting on one side does not make a consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written, nicely illustrated, and, in my opinion, this is both correctly cited and well referenced. I like the illustrations, but a few seemed to me close to sandwiching text (Gallery building section), which the MOS frowns on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The one other option here is to remove one of the images. I thought both were important enough to include - the actual gallery building itself and the sculpture of Shakespeare - that a little sandwiching was acceptable. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, with maximum default pic size but a reasonable size screen. On a small screen it might not be so great. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I primarily use a laptop which has a relatively small screen, so that may be part of it. If no one else has a problem with, then this is what they make Ignore All Rules for. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Well written as always; the one instance of text sandwiched between images is acceptable to me, as stacking would look worse in the section; overall compliant with WP:WIAFA and just lovely. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: An exceptionally thorough and comprehensive article, which I found fascinating. I'm leaning towards support, but I do have a few queries. —This is part of a comment by Qp10qp (of 22:59, April 26, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

• There is perhaps a detail missing in the bit about the theatre being unprofitable, leading to the lack of good tragedies. I changed it to "writing plays was not profitable", but this may not be right. The missing link for me arises somewhere between: a) it was unprofitable b) therefore few good tragedies were written. If theatre was unprofitable, why is tragedy singled out? The general point also seems to glide over the fact that Shakespeare was not just about tragedies. Macklin was famous as Shylock, for example.

That change is an error - I've fixed it. It is only that tragedy was unprofitable and therefore no good tragedies were being written. For some reason, audiences didn't like Shakespeare's comedies at the time. Other comedies were popular, though. Should I add information about the comedies? I wasn't sure how much detail to go into. This section has already been drastically cut down. :( Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it just about passes now, if by "dramas" (in the Hollywood sense of a serious narrative) the reader assumes "tragedies". I still think there's a missing logic jump here, but now it's better disguised. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "dramas" to "tragedies". This theatrical history is all bound up with specific personalities like Colley Cibber and the theater wars of the 1680s and 1690s. *sigh* I really don't know how to summarize it well. I want it make sense. I'm not a fan of illogic. Let's make this work. Can you spell out for me what is missing? I'm seeing the whole picture and it is really hard for me to step back and see only the redaction. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes exact sense now.

I think the reason Shakespeare's comedies weren't in vogue was to do with lingering classicism and the sense that his comedies were too earthy, native, and unruly. Certainly Macklin was a huge hit as Shylock, if we class The Merchant of Venice as a comedy (not exactly a barrel of laughs, Lancelot Gobbo being about the unfunniest clown in Shakespeare, though it's a close-run thing between him, Stephano, and Trinculo, IMO). qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the 18th century, Shakespeare became associated with rising British nationalism, and Boydell tapped into the same rich market that many other entrepreneurs were exploiting. Again, here I seem to be missing the link between the first part of the sentence and the last. I'm assuming that British nationalism produced a certain type of market, but this is not explained.

• The market of Shakespeare as national icon. The modern day equivalent is souvenir shops. How best to word this? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What about substituting "mood" for "rich market"? ("Mood" implies commercial possibilites, but it would also bridge back to the first part of the sentence.) qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, the long delay in publishing the prints and the illustrated edition prompted criticism. Because they were hurried, and many illustrations had to be done by lesser artists ... For me, "long" delay" and "hurried" are not reconciled here. This is in the lead, but as far as I can see the main article does not talk of either delays or hurrying.

• Delay: This is mentioned in the second half of the "Reaction" section briefly - Gillray criticized the project for it. It is mentioned again at the beginning of the "Collapse" section with the mention of the drop of subscriptions. There are just very few details on this anywhere.

I didn't connect the drop in subscriptions with delay or hurry. The only hint on delay is Criticism increased as the project dragged on; James Gillray published a cartoon labelled "Boydell sacrificing the Works of Shakespeare to the Devil of Money-Bags", but even there, I didn't read Gillray's comment as about delay, and I assumed that "dragged on" was simply a form of words.

• Hurry: The hurry happens after the delay. The rush to finish without financial disaster. I found only the vaguest references to this. I think the details would be in dusty records somewhere. I ran into a lot of trouble trying to tell the "story" of this enterprise. Where do you think I should add sentences about these issues? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything were to be added, I'd suggest the best place would be at the beginning of the "Collapse" section, in connection with the variety of engravers and poor quality of many engravings, etc. But if there is no real detail on this, the easiest thing might just be to tweak the wording in the lead so that the reader doesn't expect to hear about delays and hurrying.qp10qp (talk)

See diff. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ideal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The gallery is called "Boydell gallery", "Boydell's gallery" and "the Boydells' gallery". On the nephew Josiah Boydell, the article says that he was John Boydell's partner, but he is kept in the background. Late in the article it says that Josiah Boydell was saved from bankruptcy by the lottery; but earlier, the article says that The project eventually bankrupted Boydell. Was John bankrupted but not his nephew?

• It should be called either "the Boydell gallery" or "Boydell's gallery". Anything else is a mistake. Josiah is his nephew and a painter for the edition - also a junior partner. The project bankrupted John Boydell and saved Josiah from bankruptcy (John was dead at that point - he died right in the middle of the lottery). To be clear, "Boydell" is always John Boydell. It is clear from the scholarship that he was the one in charge. Josiah is barely mentioned. Please advise where this needs to be made clearer. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the two instances of "Boydells'" to "Boydell's", and this largely solves it (I had read from the distinction that Josiah had risen to an equal partnership—how much there is in an apostrophe!). I'd suggest that John's bankruptcy needs to be mentioned in the main body of the article, because as things stand, it is mentioned in the lead, but the only mention of bankruptcy in the article concerns Josiah. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the clarify "John" versus "Josiah" in the "Collapse" section, but this whole story is complicated. Whether John actually went bankrupt is probably a matter to split legal hairs over. John Boydell was trying to save his business by having the lottery. But he died before the lottery was over. Josiah then inherited the business and was saved from bankruptcy because of the lottery. The most important point is that the Shakespeare enterprise helped push John Boydell's firm into financial insolvency. I think this is made clearly in the article. Let me know if you think it is not. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. What, then, about "the project eventually led Boydell to the verge of bankruptcy"? qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to The project caused the Boydell firm to become insolvent, and they were forced to sell the gallery at a lottery. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Towards the end of the century, the theatre became associated with the masses and Shakespeare's status as a playwright was no longer enough to hold his former consideration as a "great writer". I couldn't work out the meaning of this sentence.

• That seems to have been changed. Shakespeare's association with drama during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries assured him respect. However, because the theater became associated with popular culture in the mid- to late eighteenth century, being a playwright began to look slightly sketchy (even though Shakespeare wasn't a playwright during the eighteenth century - it was guilt by association). Thoughts on how to phrase this? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head here. As far as I know, there was no decline in Shakespeare's prestige at the end of the century, popular theatre or no. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is prestige rested on changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I leave it to you, but it remains a poor sentence, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Now: He had originally been respected as a playwright, but once the theatre became association with the masses, Shakespeare's status as a "great writer" shifted. - Then goes on to talk about Shakespeare in print. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the quote about the dinner, an Alderman is mentioned. I know that this is Boydell, but some readers may be confused here unless they are informed elsewhere in the article that Boydell was an Alderman. Was he also Lord Mayor?

• Yes, he was Lord Mayor. I've linked Alderman and put Boydell's name in brackets there. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of links in quotes, but this does solve it. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like links in quotes either, but I think a long digression into what an Alderman is should not happen in this article. That is more appropriate for the John Boydell article. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The edition was to be financed through a subscription campaign, during which the buyers would pay part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery. This unusual practice was necessitated by the fact that over £350,000—an enormous sum at the time—was eventually spent. What was unusual about this (what was different from other subscription schemes?).

• I don't know. It was just described as unusual. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only asked because when I read Uglow's William Hogarth, I remember that subscription rackets of every sort were all the rage. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the sense anywhere that this was a racket. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. If your source says it was unusual, that's good enough for me. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although the Boydells ended with 1,384 subscriptions, the rate of subscriptions dropped and remaining subscriptions were also increasingly in doubt. How did this work? Does "remaining" mean "existing" here? Were people paying a certain sum every so often? And what did they get in return? Were they resubscribing for subsequent material?

• I have a feeling it was all very ad hoc. "Remaining" means "already subscribed". It is not at all clear to me what they got and when or whether everyone got the same thing. These details are not explained in the few sources that exist. Art historians don't deem them important, I guess. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. My plodding mind just can't picture the relationship between the subscription and the product. One would assume that subscribers paid so much in advance and the rest on delivery, or perhaps that they paid so much a month. However, it is not clear to me why they would still be subscribing once they had the goods, unless, as in modern hire purchase, they went on paying until they were paid up. The latter strikes me as the likeliest explanation for Josiah's continued search for the subscription money: that people had taken delivery of the folios, editions, or whatever, and had then defaulted on their remaining payments. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I really can't say. I can speculate, but we know what that leads to. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of speculation as of trying make the language more exact. But there is a limit, I admit, if the sources aren't clear. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In June 1788, Boydell and his nephew secured the lease on a site at 52 Pall Mall to rebuild the gallery. The article does not say that it was built before or had to be rebuilt.

• That was a mistake introduced during copy editing by someone. I've fixed it. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Shakespeare Gallery, when it opened on 4 May 1789, contained 34 paintings, and by the end of its run it had between 167 and 170. By "end of its run", does this mean by the time it closed?

• Yes. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An exhibition can have a run, perhaps, but not a gallery. This sounds more like a theatrical term to me. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of exhibitions having runs, but perhaps this is a modern art gallery term? (I worked at an art gallery in New York for a while.) Perhaps this is anachronistic? Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exhibitions have runs, but not galleries. (Is the Tate gallery having a run?) No big deal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Shakespeare Gallery was considered both an exhibition and a gallery. The whole thing is so odd and complicated. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• In mentioning Rowe's edition, is it worth saying that it was the first illustrated Shakespeare?

• We could. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a ref and can add it; but please make it clear if you do not want this. It's very much on-topic, I think. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to sourced to Taylor. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's a "modeller"?

• No idea - Rupert Clayton added that, I believe. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Life's too short to investigate, so no matter. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to find that the lucky William Tassie, "modeller, of Leicester Fields" is also lucky enough to have his own wikipedia page. Turns out he and his uncle did minute things with gems and cameos. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the meticulous care with which this article was built. One can tell. qp10qp (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: All queries answered to my satisfaction. qp10qp (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the careful copy editing and helpful questions! As usual, you've pointed to the areas which are the weakest. I wish I had better answers for you. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Marvellous stuff. Many thanks also to qp --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've left some minor notes on the talk page, but nothing that prevents me from supporting. Fine work. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried to address these - thanks so much for the copy editing! Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead states that the illustrated edition "was released between 1791 and 1803", but later, it's stated that the "first volumes of the Dramatic Works were published in 1791 and the last in 1805."

Fixed - should be 1803. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Beautiful work and a pleasure to read! Some small things:

• "However, according to Friedman" Might be good to introduce Friedman with the full name here and a short adjective (Shakespeare scholar?) for readers.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "This unusual practice..." It was unclear to me as a lay reader whether this referred to the unusualness of holding a subscription campaign or the buyers paying "part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery".

• I don't know precisely what was unusual about it (see discussion above). Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "When a subscription was circulated for a medal to be struck" I was confused as to what this meant.

• Should it say "for a medal to be made"? Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "to develop and cut a new typeface" Would a description of the typeface be warranted here? Or would it be too much unnecessary detail?

• I don't know enough about it to include anything interesting. Sorry! :( Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "printed from the texts of Reed and Malone" Perhaps a bracketed editorial insert on who Reed was? Or maybe a link?

• Linked. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.