Talk:Restoration comedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Restoration comedy 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 January 6, 2005.
November 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted

This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
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.

	Theatre Portal 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I've expanded this article a lot, it was a stub when I started. See the hole where Aphra Behn ought to go, though? I'll be back, but help on A.B. would be appreciated, editing this article is beginning to feel lonely . Also, I just wrote a feeble final paragraph about Restoration comedy being again appreciated on the stage today. It's more of a placeholder, I wish somebody who has actually seen some modern performances would rewrite it much more brilliantly and specifically. (I live at the North Pole, I don't get to London and New York much.)--Bishonen 13:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess not. The bits about Aphra Behn and modern performances are as feeble as ever, but I'm gonna nominate this sucker for FAC just the same, I'm quite pleased with it now. Lonely work, though.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 12:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Celebrity actresses? 2 Add importance of actors as celebrities to intro? 3 More summarizing content in the lead? 4 Better a rake than a hoe? 5 Style and Time 6 FAC and Sheridan 7 Breeches 8 Court

[edit] Celebrity actresses?

My understanding of the current usage of the terms "actor" and "actress" is that "actor" can be male or female while of course "actress" means female actor, and this is how the words are used in the article (I assume). But the organization of the "Actors" section, i.e. the apparent parallelism of the two subsections, the first using the term "actor" in its title and having a picture of a male actor, the second using the word "actress" in its title and having a picture of a female actor, tends to imply that "actor" is being used here to mean "male actor", with the result that, one might conclude (wrongly I assume) that only male actors reached celebrity status. Some possible fixes for this (assuming again that some female actors did have such "star power") might be to make it explicit in the first subsection that the celebrities also included female actors? Say by changing the first sentence to "During the Restoration, actors on the London stage (both male and female) became for the first time public personalities and celebrities." Or by mentioning a celebrity actress by name? And/or changing the titles of the subsections, the first to say, "the rise of celebrity" or the "the rise of star power" and the second to say the "First female actors" or "The emergence of the female actor"? These are just some first thoughts, there might be better ways to address this issue. By the way excellent article ;-) I haven't yet finished it, but right now, I'm anticipating voting to support it for FA ;-) Paul August 19:55, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I did worry a little that it might be possible to take "actor" as referring to males only, once the word "actress" got in there, but then I thought "...naah!" I didn't see the portrait thing at all (I kept moving the portraits around experimentally, and sort of didn't realize how they ended up wrt male and female), thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to make it clear in the way you suggest. Elizabeth Barry had a fantastic amount of star power, indeed—she seems to have absolutely hypnotised the audience. Thanks for the kind words!--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 20:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've tried putting the actresses before the celebrities, what do you think? I hope it doesn't look bad that Betterton gets a paragraph and Barry doesn't. I just don't want to use a lot of space for her, since she has her own pretty good article (wrote it meself :-)), while Betterton only has one of those 1911 EB texts. :-( I try to point the reader to it by saying "see Elizabeth Barry. Not sure it helps, though.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 22:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Better ;-) Paul August 05:24, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Add importance of actors as celebrities to intro?

Perhaps some thing about the importance of the new phenomenon of actors as celebrities should be added to the intro? Something like "Wide and socially mixed audiences were attracted to the comedies by up-to-the-minute topical writing, crowded and bustling plots, the introduction of the first professional actresses, and the emergence of the actor as celebrity" say? Paul August 05:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I'll put something on those lines in there. It's a biggish section and yet there's nothing about it in the lead, can't think why. Thank you.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 06:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More summarizing content in the lead?

How about more in the lead summarizing the rest of the article? Especially something about the "End of comedy" and the renewed modern interest? Paul August 15:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Better a rake than a hoe?

About "rakish," I'll leave that up to Bishonen, but I have some qualms about it. Some of the wit heroes are very much rakes, and some of them are very much not. It's hard to say what the atmosphere was like. Rakes were admired and tolerated, but I'm not sure they were idealized even at court. Rochester and Dorset were rakes (and Dorset actually lived past his 40's), but I'm not sure that "rakish" is good in the lead as a capstone to the whole era, when, as Bishonen brilliantly points out, there are two big waves of comedy that are quite distinct from each other especially in terms of sexual ethos. Geogre 17:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style and Time

Bishonen, I'm sorry I opined on the FAC page about the late stuff. Would it be possible to say something like, "Later playwrights, such as Richard Brinsley Sheridan and Oliver Goldsmithwould imitate the style of Restoration comedy, but Restoration comedy came to an effective end with the close of the 17th century?" I'll leave it entirely to you and butt out altogether on the subject. I had only wanted to say that I thought you were right to approach the subject as you do and that you shouldn't have to answer to the faults of Nettleton Case & Stone or whoever tossed stuff in a Norton Anthology. Geogre 18:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More on that: The mistaken assumption that Sheridan wrote Restoration plays is pedagogical. First, the Nettleton, Case & Stone anthology of 18th c. British drama, which is one of the most used, sort of sets up the confusion. They're quite clear about it, but they give enough of the "throwback to Restoration" language that it's possible to make the mistake. Secondly, I would venture to guess that a lot of undergraduate presentations of Restoration comedy in the US will hit four plays, perhaps, and they'll be "representative." Thus, they'll be Man of Mode, Way of the World, maybe Country Wife and maybe Rover, depending, and then School for Scandal or She Stoops to Conquer. The profs doing that are trying to kind of knock out the whole range of the comedy. Whether they say clearly that these late plays are only stylistically Restoration or not, students can end up lumping the late stuff in with the early stuff. I.e. a scholar wouldn't conflate them, but I think ALoan is right that civilians do. Also, though, I think my analogy to Romantics is apt. "The Romantics" were 1789-1850, but a Victorian era poem can be called "a Romantic poem" that isn't part of Romanticism, just as someone could paint a Cubist painting today. All of which is not to say that I think a clarification needs to take place, but only that I do understand why he raised the point. Geogre 01:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and Sheridan

(moved from WP:FAC since I have already supported)

• • For what it's worth, I'd definitely not go after the later "Restoration" comedies. I agree that some folks will lump Sheridan, and even Goldsmith, in, but Bishonen's article is an excellent article partially because it focuses on the historical and cultural development of the thing, rather than the stylistic or generic considerations. It would be a mismatch, in a way, to go from a focus on the historical and cultural to the aesthetic, in my opinion. I do agree, however, that an external to the ESTC or one of the other catalogs would be worthwhile. Geogre 16:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the idea of referring to the ESTC. It's the wrong period, and it's subscription only. Geogre 16:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What is the ESTC? This catalogue looks to be free. If this article doesn't address "stylistic or generic considerations" then shouldn't it be History of restoration comedy rather than Restoration comedy? In any event, I still think it would be useful to explain why Sheridan is excluded, if only to avoid someone infelicitously adding him in later - e.g. " Some plays, such as those of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, are described as "restoration comedies" due to their stylistic and aesthetic similarity to comedies written in the period immediately after the Restoration, despite being written at a substantially later date. See [whatever]. " -- ALoan (Talk) 17:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The ESTC is the English Short Title Catalog, which is a scholarly reference work on everything produced, where the print copies are held, who has what edition, etc. It is online now. However, I confused it with the other Wing and Redgrave Short Title Catalog. The ESTC picks up in 1701, where the STC goes from 1000-17000. There is nothing wrong with the source you list, and I'll add it to the External Links, if Bishonen doesn't. I'm not the author of the article, but my opinion is that, while it's good to give a sentence explaining why purely stylistic plays are excluded and that this article deals with the comedies of the Restoration period, I think those late 18th c. plays get called "Restoration" in the same way that Ivanhoe is called an 18th century novel. The approximation of the style by Goldsmith and Sheridan was conscious. They were imitating what they thought of as being Old comedy. A single sentence or clause saying that the article is about the comedies of the Restoration seems reasonable, but actually discussing the later folks seems like a bad idea to me. Geogre 18:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ALoan, I don't hold with your alternative title History of Restoration comedy, because I think myself that the article does address stylistic considerations, from here to Christmas, only it does so together with the theatre-historical background to how the many styles came to be the way they are. It doesn't address generic considerations, no, but wouldn't those, if anything, belong under the title History of Restoration comedy?

About what "Restoration comedy" means: some delimitations that have been suggested by historians are comedies produced in 1660—1668, 1660—1682, 1660—1685, 1660—1688, 1660—1700, 1660—1702, 1660—1710, 1660—1732, or 1660—1760. All these suggestions have merit and all have their own problems; you have to pick one, define it for the reader, and go with it. I define 1660—1700 in the Lead, I don't discuss the alternatives (that's one of many, many things I don't discuss, that article could easily have been three times as long). My reasoning was that 1660—1700 would be the most encyclopedic and least idiosyncratic option, being the "classic" and most common period referred to by the term. I did not pick it as my personal favourite, which would be 1660—1710, among other things because it includes George Farquar and Susannah Centlivre. Please note also that if you're not talking about Restoration comedy specifically, but more generally about "the Restoration period", then 1660—1685, the reign of Charles II, is probably the encyclopedic winner (the article Restoration thinks so). 1660—1700 is in there among the top contenders, though.

Anyway, under any of those definitions Sheridan is kind of an extreme idea, with his first play in 1775, 115 years after the restoration of the monarchy. I think his plays have only been called Restoration comedies by people who are trying to say that his plays are like Restoration comedies (a remark that has been made about some 20th century plays, too), or who have very extreme ideas about, say, 1600—1800 being all one arena, a place rather than a time, where all really old plays meet and nod to each other. I've seen people with these ideas (or, as I would call it, ignorance) on the web, and I do understand your concern that some of them might come along and put Sheridan in there, but if they're anyway not going to read the Lead and see "1660—1700", well, would a less prominent remark further down stop them?

I think this is a general question: is it good encyclopedic practice to warn against all the popular misconceptions in a field, lest somebody come along and add them? "Restoration comedy" is extremely rife with such misconceptions, it's a widely mythologized subject. Should I really add this dimension to the article? It'd make it not only longer, but a lot heavier, and well, make it snottier. People read our articles to learn something, to get correct information, they don't need to get told that they had hold of wrong information before. Or just the Sheridan thing, do you think? Should I write a separate article something on the lines of Urban legends about Restoration comedy? That might be a little snotty, the mere concept of it, but then that's what people expect if they come looking for urban legends. I'd be quite happy to do it, actually.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 18:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

My "History of ..." comment was just in response to Geogre's comment about "historical and cultural development of the thing, rather than the stylistic or generic considerations" - if you think it is complete, and not just "History of ..." then fine.

I think a comprehensive and NPOV article should at least refer to commonly-held but non-mainstream views, particularly if they are matters of opinion but even where they are simply erroneous - better to address them and explain the error than simply to ignore. Someone reading Restoration comedy may not be familiar with many of the rather obscure playwrights from the Restoration period, but (I should have thought) are more likely to have heard of Sheridan.

(I have already supported, by the way ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ALoan, do you have a source to suggest to suggest for "Some plays, such as those of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, are described as "restoration comedies" due to their stylistic and aesthetic similarity to comedies written in the period immediately after the Restoration, despite being written at a substantially later date. See [whatever]"? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I do realise I'm supposed to be the expert, not you, but I've just never heard this way of referring to Sheridan's plays before. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I just haven't. Now that you've told me, I've tried Google "Richard Brinsley Sheridan" + "Restoration comedy" and gotten plenty of hits, but as far as I've checked they're of the "Sheridan expressed his indebtedness to Restoration comedy" kind. Although there are some overwritten Wikipedia mirror site pages that call The School For Scandal "a late Restoration comedy", though the more recent ones don't, and I can't see that Wikipedia's own Richard Brinsley Sheridan or The School for Scandal ever called it that... oh, gosh, this is getting complicated, never mind. In any case, I think whoever called it that was saying "late" in order to speak metaphorically. Anyway, I don't know of any source for the terminology, let alone a reputable one, and I'd rather not be reduced to "some people describe Sheridan's comedies as Restoration comedies". The nearest thing I've got is "The first useful thing to say about Richard Brinsley Sheridan is that he did not, despite what people think, write Restoration comedies". [1], but that's got weasely "people think" in it, even though the New York Review of Books is a fine source in itself.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• OK, please see Geogre's latest comment on Talk:Restoration comedy: I think the reason I was nonplussed is that I wasn't exposed to these misunderstandings at school, not being a native speaker. Perhaps somebody who was can put it in, if desired. So, you people read The Country Wife at school, eh? That's disgusting. :-)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 01:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, The Rivals starts: "The Rivals, a play by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, is a late restoration comedy in five acts. It was first performed on 17th January 1775." While I agree that this may not be the accepted academic terminology, I suspect that it is a widely-held misapprehension and it would be worth a sentence stating that Sheridan is considered to be Eighteenth century comedy or whatever, but that he deliberately aimed at a Restoration style (indeed, I suspect that many people's interpretation of "Restoration comedy" would coloured by watching Sheridan, or from John Sessions et al. performing stand-up "in a Restoration style" in Whose Line Is It Anyway?). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Breeches

Ack, breeches aren't trousers. I know this might sound like splitting hairs but this really made me cringe when I read it. Breeches, aka knee breeches, come to the knees, and trousers/pants go to the ankles. Breeches were replaced by trousers as fashionable men's clothing in the Regency (1811-1820). Anyway, I had enough time to comment, but not enough to make an article at breeches.  :/ fabiform | talk 22:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• See what you think now. Is "pants" wrong to use at all? I do think "breeches" probably needs to be explained/defined in the article text itself, even if you do write an article at breeches, but it's kind of difficult. What do you think of the first image caption, could it stand? I'd hate to have to talk about the man in the tub having lost his breeches. And how about the highly technical neoclassical term "pantsing plot" (that I was feeling rather proud of having invented ;-)) in the "Aristocratic comedy" section below?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 04:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Court

This is very minor, but the two links to the word court link to the wrong definition of the word. They should link to noble court. Superking 06:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both, and I have taken the third step, by piping the links, so that the text says court but links to noble court. Perfect. :-)--Bishonen | Talk 19:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(take my advice this is a great lot of information to take in well worth while)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.140.233 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the kind words, anonymous contributor. (I wrote the page originally.) Bishonen | talk 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC).