Jump to content

Talk:Boydell Shakespeare Gallery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hampstead dinner

Awadewit, I've found some conflicting references to the date and host of the dinner at which the project was conceived. The Grove Dictionary of Art puts it in November 1786. An older reference (Shakespeare in Pictorial Art (1916)) gives the date November 1787, and puts it in the Hampstead house of Josiah Boydell, whom it identifies as John's nephew (not brother). Josiah Jr. would have been 37 at the time, so this is credible. That reference also adds Paul Sandby to the guest list, and credits George Nicol (given as Nichols) for the idea of Shakespeare's works as an artistic subject. I don't have access to the references you quote, so it may be the sources I have found are not accurate. Any thoughts? Rupert Clayton 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There are five separate primary sources that relate the story of the dinner that all secondary sources draw the story from. They are laid out in the sources I have. None of them agree on any of these particulars, unfortunately. They are: Josiah's account, court records, Joseph Farington's diary, Romney's biography, and Nicol's preface:
  • I was never quite sure of Josiah's relationship - it seems to be variously described as nephew and brother.
  • I think the dinner is 1786 because the prospectus was published in 1786.
  • Of the five accounts of the dinner, four list the attendees of the dinner. All four list the names of Benjamin West, George Romney, George Nicol, Hayley, Hoole, Daniel Braithwaite, and John and Josiah Boydell. Three of the four list Paul Sandby. In the article I listed the people included on every list. What do you think we should do?
  • Both Nicol and Romney are given credit for coming up with the idea. Josiah Boydell, Nicol, and court documents give Nicol credit. Farington's diary gives no one in particular credit. Romney's son credits Romney in his biography of him (Friedman discounts this because it is so self-serving). It's a mess. Awadewit | talk 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (unindent) Thanks for your detailed explanation. Sorry to hear you've been so sick, and please don't feel you have to respond here with any urgency. 1786 seems pretty clear for the year; November 1786 seems likely, because several secondary sources cite this month, but do your primary sources support that? I don't know enough about Boydell's relatives to establish whether Josiah Boydell the host could have been John's brother, but I hope to do some more digging here, as it will also shed light on Mary Boydell (apparently John's sister, and the wife of George Nicol) and a shooting incident of about 1786 that may have involved Mary or perhaps John's niece. Paul Sandby's presence at the dinner is confirmed by most of your sources, so I think we should add him in, perhaps with a caveat. I'll make that change, and you can see if you agree with my wording. Rupert Clayton 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From further research I've learned that Mary Boydell (who later married George Nicol) was the elder sister of Josiah Boydell, and that both were the children of Samuel Boydell (one of John's younger brothers). Mary was her uncle's housekeeper at 90 Cheapside after John's wife Elizabeth died in 1787. By 9 July 1787 she was engaged to George Nicol. That was the date for a strange attack on Mary by a man it seems we might call a stalker, Dr. John Elliot, who shot her with a pair of pistols that may or may not have been loaded. There's a chattily written description of the incident and trial here. Much of this you may already know. It took me a little while to sort out the family relationships. To help me I put together User:Rupert_Clayton/Boydell_Family_Tree, which mostly goes to show that there were many Johns, Josiahs and Marys in the family, and that it's possible, but unlikely that the Josiah who hosted the dinner was John's brother and not his nephew. Not a great deal here to add to any Wikipedia articles, but it might give me a little more confidence in editing the Boydell stuff. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC checklist

After having gone through FAC many times, I have generated an FAC checklist. It has worked pretty well for me. It is a bit laborious, but it usually makes FAC pretty easy. See what you think:

I usually go through WP:GAC first, but they are so backed up right now that that route is pointless right now, I think. Awadewit | talk 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do a top-to-bottom copy edit at the beginning of next week, unless you'd prefer to get peer review started faster. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviews can take awhile. Let's put it up and copy edit simultaneously. I will try to solicit some peer reviews, as WP:PR is often overwhelmed. Awadewit | talk 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I managed to solicit two peer reviews. That is about all I can get at the moment, I think. (I have two articles up for FA currently and another up for PR, so my resources are stretched a little thin.) However, I think this article looks pretty good. We might want one more peer review. Do you know anyone to ask? Otherwise, we can just wait it out and see if anyone reviews it. It might happen. Awadewit | talk 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you want to wait for the catalogue before nominating this for FAC. I don't know how much more information we will get out of it - I'm assuming a a few choice sentences. I think we can go for FAC once we resolve the illustration issue. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I have done some copy editing. I have removed the following paragraph:

The existing house at 52 Pall Mall—the future site of the gallery—had been built in 1726–1727 by the painter William Pickering, under a 61-year building lease from James Tichborne, the ground landlord. From 1738, it had housed the bookshop of Robert Dodsley, and from 1759, that of his brother James. In 1787, James Dodsley moved his shop to another location in Pall Mall, perhaps because the lease originally granted to William Pickering had expired. 52 Pall Mall was then taken on a new 80-year lease by Benjamin Vandergucht, a painter and picture dealer. Vandergucht agreed an annual rent of £120, payable to Sir Henry Tichborne, the grandson of James Tichborne. This lease describes the site as having a 25-foot frontage on Pall Mall, with a depth of 122 feet. Within a year, Vandergucht assigned his ground lease to the Boydells.[1]

I don't think that this information is germane to the article. The Pall Mall background is helpful because it is general, but these details are tangential and will probably not interest the bulk of our readers. What do you think? As much as we would like, we cannot include every detail about the gallery. :) Our enthusiasm outstrips our readers' enthusiasm. Awadewit | talk 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. The whole paragraph is tangential. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have added a lot of redlinks. Are you sure articles can be written about all of these people and places? I don't like to add redlinks unless I am sure. By the way, although redlinks are not a barrier to FAhood, I have had complaints that articles I submitted had "too many" redlinks (and that was something like four). Technically this is not an "actionable" complaint (in FA-speak), but I did want to make you aware of it. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to reduce the redlinks by creating stubs or de-linking if the person/thing is of doubtful notability. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've started working on the redlink problem, too. I'm using the DNB as my guide - if they have no article, I'm delinking. Awadewit | talk 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you are expanding the new stub articles quite a bit. Nice work. I put a couple of them up for WP:DYK. Awadewit | talk 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. Doesn't look like either George Nicol (bookseller) or Robert Bowyer made the cut. I'll have to try with another redlink after the weekend. Rupert Clayton (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, they will. It just takes a few days. All DYKs that qualify (are 1500 characters, etc.) are eventually put up - the situation we had last time was anomalous. Awadewit | talk 03:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I see both made it, along with Joseph Farington. More impressive still was Thoughts on the Education of Daughters appearing on the main page. Congratulations. I have a vision of Simpsons obsessives, closeted gamers and of course Timothy "Attitude" Clayton fans developing new-found respect for Mary Wollstonecraft through your dedicated work. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Slowly, but surely, the world will become educated regarding the eighteenth century, eh? Awadewit | talk 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I archived the peer review, since the WP:PR page is broken, due to too many reviews being listed. I hope you don't mind. We can always start a second one or have other reviewers post their comments here. Awadewit | talk 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Awadewit: A sincere apology to you for not realising soon enough that there was a whole peer review discussion going on at WP:PR that you were addressing single-handedly. You must have thought I had just dumped that all on you. I'll try to figure out the WP procedures better next time. Your solutions to the various points raised all appear to work well. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New section on the text of Shakespeare's plays

I've added a new paragraph on the text of Shakespeare's plays. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had another read through the lead, and wondered whether it might be useful to name the architect and the location here. I'm conscious of the FAC requirement for "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections". Also, a minority of readers might come to the article because they're interested in Dance's architecture, or the history of central London. Some mention in the lead helps these readers recognise that they're in the right place. So, I'm thinking of changing

The building of the gallery excited great public interest and its progress was followed weekly in the press.

to

The building of the gallery, designed by George Dance the Younger, at 52 Pall Mall excited great public interest and its progress was followed weekly in the press.

or perhaps more clearly

Architect George Dance the Younger produced designs for Boydell's gallery building at 52 Pall Mall, and the construction excited great public interest, with its progress followed weekly in the press.

Does either seem appropriate? Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this: The building of the gallery in Pall Mall, which was designed by George Dance the Younger, excited great public interest and its progress was followed weekly in the press. - I think we can give the exact location in the article. Is it correct BE to say "in Pall Mall"? Awadewit | talk 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That phrasing works well. I'll update the lead. Even though we Brits use both "in" and "on" for street locations, "in Pall Mall" sounds more natural; you must be picking this up by osmosis :). You've probably also come across some of the few London streets that are generally preceded by definite articles: "in the Strand", "in the Haymarket", though this usage is definitely diminishing. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible duplications in lists of art works

I should have asked earlier, but do the following duplicate entries in the list of works in the folio reflect two paintings of the same scene by the same artist, or are they perhaps just duplicate entries?

In the Folio, Volume I

  • Midsummer-Night's Dream, Act IV, scene 1 by Henry Fuseli
  • Midsummer-Night's Dream, Act IV, scene 1 Henry Fuseli

In the Folio, Volume II

  • Henry IV, part 2, Act IV, scene 4 by Josiah Boydell
  • Henry IV, part 2, Act IV, scene 4 by Josiah Boydell
  • Richard III, Act IV, scene 3 by James Northcote
  • Richard III, Act IV, scene 3 by James Northcote

If they really do represent two paintings drawn from events in the same scene, do you think we should try to distinguish them in some way (if possible)? I worry that some well-meaning later editor will conflate them.

Also do you have a preference for l.c. Roman or Arabic numbering for the scenes (the Folio list uses Arabic; the Ill. Ed. list uses l.c. Roman)? I'm not familiar with the current standard style for these. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Midsummer-Night's Dream, Act IV, scene 1 by Henry Fuseli
  • Midsummer-Night's Dream, Act II, scene 1 Henry Fuseli - typo
  • Henry IV, part 2, Act IV, scene 4 by Josiah Boydell - Prince Henry Taking the Crown
  • Henry IV, part 2, Act IV, scene 4 by Josiah Boydell - Prince Henry’s Apology
  • Richard III, Act IV, scene 3 by James Northcote - The Young Princes Murdered in the Tower
  • Richard III, Act IV, scene 3 by James Northcote - Burying of the Royal Children

I think I prefer Arabic, even though it is less scholarly, because it is easier for people to read. :) Awadewit | talk 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have amended the Folio listings, and I will change the Illustrated Edition to use Arabic numbering. I agree that it's easier to read. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing questions

  • I am doing the second copy editing run-through and I noticed that sometimes we capitalize "gallery" (as in Boydell's Gallery) and sometimes we don't. Do you think we should?
  • If you have Winifred Friedman's book available, could you check the spelling of "endeavor" in the following sentence: "The encouragement he would endeavor to find if a proper subject were pointed out." The current BE spelling is "endeavour", but that doesn't mean it wasn't "endeavor" in the original. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly with "splendor" in "the splendor and magnificence, united with correctness of text were the great objects of this Edition" (quoted from the preface, and quoted again in the next paragraph). Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we should leave it as it is, on the basis that both spellings seem to have been current in England at the time, Josiah clearly used "endeavor" (above), and it doesn't seem likely that you've mistranscribed it. If anyone doubts it (and for some reason cares), they have the inline reference to refer to. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. I also spent some time looking at the TOC. I think one of us should buy the catalogue. It looks like there are a lot of good articles in it and very few of them are online. Do you want to buy it or should I? It looks like it costs 21 euros. Awadewit | talk 06:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry not to have seen your remarks here sooner. It seems to be available at Columbia College Chicago (via WorldCat at ISBN 3-89355-134-4), so perhaps I can get it through interlibrary loan to the public library. Apologies if you've already bought it or got your institution to order it. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the only difference is that it comes from a couple of pages earlier in the text (the intro to Pall Mall, rather than the survey of past buildings on the north side of the street). This also means that it has a different URL. I'm sure there a neat way to resolve this while keeping the links specific. I'll have a look at it later. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Three interconnecting exhibition rooms occupied the upper floor, with a total of more than 4,000 square feet (370 m²) of wall space for displaying pictures. - Since this article is in BE, shouldn't the meters be listed first and the feet second? Awadewit | talk 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with square feet as the primary measurement, as this is what would have been used at the time and up until the 1970s. The source for this appears to be Recollections of the British Institution, published in 1890. The 370 m² is a helpful round-number equivalent for anyone who doesn't have a clear mental picture of square feet, but if we give it first it implies that this is the primary measurement. I'd hate to find it being reconverted into "more than 370 m² (3,983 square feet) of wall space". Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've uploaded more images to the commons at "Boydell Shakespeare Gallery". See if you think we should use any of those. I also added links to the appropriate page under "Illustrated edition". Awadewit | talk 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great. And I think moving the Gillray cartoon and adding the Northcote Murder of the Princes is an improvement. So that means the article has representative selections from Reynolds, Westall, Kauffmann, Fuseli and Northcote, which leaves the following main artists unrepresented:
  • Thomas Stothard
  • George Romney
  • Benjamin West
  • Robert Smirke
  • John Opie
  • Francesco Bartolozzi
  • Thomas Kirk
  • Josiah Boydell
Of those, is there anyone else who demands to get a picture? Maybe West or Romney (though his Shakespeare Attended by Nature and the Passions appears in the John Boydell article)? Looks like we don't have a West image on commons as yet. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Here was my thinking: Reynolds was a major artist of the day and was paid a large amount of money by Boydell, so it is worth showing what he painted.
  • Westall was one of the three illustrators who contributed the greatest number of works - we should show what these kinds of works looked like.
  • I'm always in favor of showing the works of female artists in addition to male artists, so I included Kauffmann as well. I also liked it that we had her quote to go along with her work.
  • Fuseli is a major artist of the day and famous for his Shakespeare paintings - we have to have a work by him.
  • Northcote's Princes are referred to twice in the article, so I thought it would be good to actually show it.
  • I don't think all of the major artists can be represented visually in the article, unfortunately, and I'm not sure how much more space we have. I think we have space for one more image at most. I almost added the title page of the edition itself, thinking we had too many art works! :) If we add a painting, I would be inclined to add a Benjamin West because he was so famous at the time or a Robert Smirke because he contributed so many works to the project.
  • I also was thinking that we should arrange the commons gallery more carefully - tag the images with titles and artists' names and arrange them in some sort of order. But that is a project for another day. The Friedman book is filled with information that could be added to each artist's page. Yet another project for yet another day.  :) Awadewit | talk 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
All of that seems to make plenty of sense. I agree that there's not much more space to add illustrations to the article. West seems to be the most promising candidate, but I don't see either of West's images (Lear or Hamlet) on the Commons as yet. If we really pushed it, there might be space to add a West image toward the end of Boydell's Shakespeare venture (the hook being that West was present at the dinner), and perhaps a view of the Banks sculptural group at the end of the Gallery building section. However, I'm not convinced that would improve the layout (and we have neither image available at present).
BTW, I tried unsuccessfully to get a kind of slideshow widget made available in the English wikipedia. I saw it on the French version, and it's a neat way to let readers click through a series of images without disrupting the layout and legibility of an article. In its absence, I agree that a gallery page on the Commons may be the best way to go.
  • Two main reasons: it requires changes to the core Javascript functions in Wikipedia that appear likely only with some high-level support from WP staff; and there's a sizeable group that feels slideshow functionality shouldn't be added because some might abuse it. Also the Javascript code didn't work properly in Internet Explorer, and my coding skills aren't up to fixing it. You can see the whole discussion here: Slideshow template proposal and a French example here: fr:Pétra (sections Géologie and Pétra dans les arts, for example). Guess I also ran out of promotional energy. Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now added Anne Damer's two bas reliefs and copied an existing image of Banks's sculpture to Commons. I have added the Banks sculpture image to the Collapse section. See what you think. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anne Damer

Speaking of female artists, I noticed that we only mention Anne Damer's sculptures in the Collapse section. Do you have more you'd like to say about them earlier on? Would it be sensible to have a Sculpture subsection in the List of art works, for Damer's two pieces and the Banks sculpture? Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An outisde comment

This is an outside comment, as requested by Awadewit some time ago (apologies for my tardiness - I'm dealing with a lot of work pressure at the moment). Generally I think this is a very good article. I had two problems with it when I first looked at it a) the wording of the lead and b) the "Shakespeare in the 18th century" section. The lead looks better now so my only issue with the page is the Shakespeare's reputation section. In brief I think that whole section is far too long. The information there is excellent but it is not all directly pertinent to the Gallery. If possible I would summarize these 3 paragraphs into 1 shorter piece. Basically my problem with it is that the reader has to go through this fairly large section first. Yes it tells them that interest in Shakespeare was reemerging in the C18th - but what does it tell them about the gallery? It does provide context but perhaps too much. Otherwise I think this article is well written, informative and nicely illustrated - generally a credit to all those working on it--Cailil talk 12:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Were there particular parts you thought we should cut? Could we maybe integrate a discussion of the gallery and the edition into the section a bit better? I would hate to cut a large section of it, but if we must, we must. We are much to close to this article to make this decision. I'll try to find another reviewer to ask as well. Thanks - we think everything about Boydell is interesting! :) Awadewit | talk 18:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the section is a really good piece of encyclopedic writing but it would make more sense to me in the Shakespeare's reputation article and just summarized here. If I were to excise particular parts from this article I'd cut the cross class appeal down to about 3 sentences. The other two although important only provide context for why Boydell's Gallery seemed viable. With that in mind the breath and depth of their discussion is too great, for instance the mention of Garrick is tangential to this page. And in that same mindset the detail of the editions subsection is not related to the Gallery - in this case I'd keep the first paragraph and very briefly note that popular authors like Pope and Johnson were involved in editions of Shakespeare's work and leave it at that.
I do think that the section should be kept as is somewhere on WP - just not necessarily here--Cailil talk 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the same question as at Aldfrith of Northumbria: how much background is too much? In my opinion, for subjects like that one and this one, where the context, in a sense, is the meaning, this sort of background is useful (though I would cut the quote, which seems to me anecdotal rather than generally illustrative). In this case, since the build-up to Boydell's gallery was necessarily a separate phenomenon to the gallery itself (in other words, it is impossible to retrospectively insert mentions of the gallery in that section), it is acceptable, I think, to have a discrete section on the century. We could be severe and say that material should only appear in one place at a time and that the Shakespeare explosion of the eighteenth century should be treated on a separate page, but the internet is a random place where most readers will not be prepared to compile their reading systematically from connected pages. Therefore, I feel it is OK and even essential to have overlaps on Wikipedia. Articles are not different chapters in a sequential book but a collection of information around a given topic. qp10qp (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I will try to collect even more opinions. Thanks everyone! Awadewit | talk 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[pasted from User talk:Awadewit With regard to Boydell: I think it might be useful to condense the first section a bit (rather than having three sub-sections), but I don't think it's urgent. Maybe I'm biased though. I think in a sense, we in the 21st century are so used to seeing a ubiquitous and universally-revered Shakespeare that this background is crucial. But I wouldn't vote against paring it a bit. – Scartol • Tok 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section has been revised and shortened per the above comments. Awadewit | talk 07:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And another

I see I have missed the peer review, but whilst the article is very comprehensive on some aspects of the subject, for an article on a series of paintings, and the prints made from them, there is remarkably little about them as works of art. Rather symptomatic is that I had to add the VA project tag just now. The brief passage about the printmaking techniques used should inform the article from a much earlier stage, and is itself problemmatic - from these links [1] and [2] my suspicions that a lot of aquatint and etching were involved appear confirmed. The remark referenced to Bruntjen "Line engraving was considered the superior form and artists and subscribers disliked the mixture" is at best over-simplified - pure line-engraving had already all but vanished and mezzotint was typically the most expensive technique to buy at the time. Unfortunately "engraving2 was and is often used as a catch-all term for printmaking, or at least intaglio printmaking, but we need to do better when it is so central to the subject. Things like "George Romney, a renowned painter" aren't really good enough in a visual arts FA candidate. It's not my period at all, nor do I find them very compelling, so I won't be able to help significantly. You might try User:Paul Barlow. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • There are two issues here. One is the specificity on each work of art. It is impossible to analyze each work or even a large number of them because there are so many (see list of art works). To analyze a representative sample would be difficult because the choice of the representative sample would be original research. In my opinion, such details are best left for the artists' articles. There is no good way to summarize what all of the prints or all of the paintings looked like.
  • The second issue is available sources. I have read almost every work published on Boydell's gallery except the catalogue referenced online (which I am looking into ordering). There is limited information on this topic. I have done the best I can from the sources available. Extensive histories of engraving are indeed available, but extensive histories of engraving as they relate to Boydell's gallery are not. We have to be careful about synthesis original research here. Awadewit | talk 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It may not be pre-cut and wrapped for you, but it is certainly not the case that art history has left either the paintings or the prints un-analysed. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The gallery, the folio, and the illustrated edition consist of over a hundred works painted and engraved by tens of different artists. There is no good way to analyze all of those works succinctly in one article. In her work Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery, Friedman breaks down her artistic analysis by artist. She has several pages on each artist. Salaman, Hartmann, and other critics analyze by artist as well. There are very few "global" statements about the art (and rightly so, really). That is why I think it is best to place the artistic analysis on each artist's page - that is what the published sources do. I actually have sixteen pages of notes organized by artist drawn from these sources. Some day I hope to add this information to those artists' articles. However, I must point out that little was said in the scholarship about the engraving. The published sources focus on the painters, I'm afraid. I spent six months researching this topic a few years ago. While my researching skills weren't as good then as they are now, I did look high and low for all mentions of Boydell and in the process read quite a bit about art in the late eighteenth century. I was also a double major as an undergraduate: English and art history. I fully appreciate the issues you are raising. However, I am also trying to write this article within the confines of the rules of Wikipedia. I am trying to represent the published scholarship on the topic. Awadewit | talk 16:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some compromise method of providing an overview of the range of styles? Something like: "Styles used by the artists featured in the gallery varied widely. ARTIST X, for example, used TECHNIQUE 1 to show THEME Q. ARTIST Y, however, employed TECHNIQUE 2 as a way of illustrating THEME K." This seems like a fair way to balance the need to avoid WP:OR and remain faithful to the published source. – Scartol • Tok 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How would we choose which artists to use as examples? Any choices I made would obviously be OR. There is already a tinge of this is the Fuseli caption that I am concerned about. Because there is limited scholarship on this topic, there isn't a consensus on the most important examples. Awadewit | talk 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. Giving examples doesn't necessarily imply to me that they are representative and/or the most important samplings. But it's your little red wagon, as Stephen King in his writing book. – Scartol • Tok 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If we were to try to synthesize an overview of criticism of the paintings, what sources would be most useful? It seems important to include contemporary, later (i.e. 19th/20th-century) and modern views. The reception at the time (much of which is already covered in the article) appears to have varied between adulation (often by the artists involved and their associates) and derision (by those such as Gillray, who didn't get commissions, and Charles Lamb). It's difficult to find an objective contemporary commentator. Even those not engaged in the London art and literary scene, such as Ludwig Tieck, had their own axes to grind.
Later critics presumably had more distance, but obviously each still has a POV. In 1916, Salaman (pp18-24), feels most of the tragedies were poorly handled, and finds the comedy pictures more successful. In fact, he rates Robert Smirke's and Matthew Peters's scenes much more highly than those by more established artists, such as Fuseli, Kaufmann, Westall, Wheatley and Opie. Of course, we may want to consider whether comments such as "that specious painter Richard Westall" reflect any view wider than Salaman's own.
Things don't get much easier when we get to modern critics, such as Frederick Burwick. The main problem here seems to be that Burwick is trying to do much the same things as we are. He looks at each artist and work separately, praising some elements, criticising others, and steadfastly avoids tarring the whole collection with one brush. That's great, but it takes a lot of space. Seems difficult to summarise that and still say anything useful. Maybe there are some generalities we can tease out of this. Any thoughts?
At least Burwick does have some clearer analysis of the various engraving techniques, their relative merits and perception among buyers. I think we should be able to use that to reinforce the discussion of engraving in the article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds an excellent approach. Do Friedman et al really have nothing at all that can be used for some general remarks? The wider perspective of the fashion for publishing of prints in collections/folios etc, from Boydell's other ones to Turner and Goya, would ideally also be covered briefly, as would the place of the physical gallery in the context of other places where a wider public could see art in London at the time (no shortage of sources there). Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have ordered the Boydell Catalogue, which has the Burwick and many more articles in it. As it has to go from Germany to the United States, I can't promise it will be here quickly. Friedman's work is a dissertation, with all of the limitations therein. It places Boydell in a historical, literary, and artistic context, but only a limited one. While Friedman is the most oft-quoted source on the Boydell gallery, her work is still a dissertation and should not be expected to have the breadth or depth of a book-length study. I would also like to mention that the article already briefly alludes to Boydell's gallery as a fashionable location several times and compares it to the Royal Academy exhibitions. How much background are you asking us to add on these topics? Are you thinking sentences, paragraphs, or sections? I am worried about overwhelming the article with background. We have already had requests to scale back the Shakespeare sections. Awadewit | talk 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably just a paragraph each. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Book has arrived today - will be adding material today and tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to add material. It turns out that scholars don't even agree on what engraving methods were used. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not find any material comparing the Boydell folio to other similar works, unfortunately. I did add one sentence explaining that the paintings would never have been except for the popularity of prints. (There is something in one of the articles about George Stubbs in this regard, but I wasn't sure how enlightening this would be.) The focus of the catalogue is often on individual works. I have added what I can regarding the engraving and reception, but larger issues of context are unfortunately missing. I am going to reorganize the article a bit now. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Query

Does anyone know how to make the commons box link to this page instead? Awadewit | talk 08:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

done. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Awadewit | talk 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[The] History of Great Britain

Hume's History of Great Britain is redlinked, but an article for the work, also included in a David Hume template, is listed under the title The History of Great Britain. I don't know whether the redlink should be piped to that article, or whether this article's content is in error and should properly include The, automatically giving a populated wikilink. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That was fast. Let's try something a bit harder. In the quote what injury did not Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery do me with Shakespeare. To have Opie's Shakespeare, Northcote's Shakespeare, light headed Fuseli's Shakespeare, wooden-headed West's Shakesepare,... is the misspelling Shakesepare correct? The listed reference isn't available online to me. When I search on the term "wooden-headed West's", I see most of the quotes using Shakspeare throughout, rather than Shakespeare (although several printed works do follow the current quote's spelling), but I see none with the Shakesepare misspelling. My questions are: Is Shakesepare correct? If it is, should there be a (sic) for the reference quote? Aside from that, does the majority rule on the Shakspeare spellings for the quote or should the article quote follow the reference? -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
All I have are my notes on that one. You want to guess I typed it out wrong? Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed the spelling to "Shakespeare" in my copyedit. Please change it back if that was wrong, but I agree that in that case it should have a sic. qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Perhaps something along the lines of:

The Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was a project initiated in November 1786 by engraver and publisher John Boydell in an effort to foster a school of British history painting. He planned to focus on an illustrated edition of William Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints, but the emphasis of the enterprise slowly shifted to the London gallery where the original paintings were displayed. Yomanganitalk 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit notes

Notes from a copyedit pass.

  • In the process, the public was reintroduced to Shakespeare's works. The mid-century Shakespearean theatrical revival was probably most responsible for reintroducing the British public to Shakespeare. The theatre enjoyed a resurgence, and Shakespeare's plays played their part. First, "reintroduced" is too close to "reintroducing". Second, I think there's a slight confusion here, at least as written. The first sentence says that the exhibitions reintroduced the public to Shakespeare; the second gives what it says is the main reason for this reintroduction. If the second sentence is accurate, the first should have a qualification such as "These exhibitions contributed to the reintroduction of Shakespeare to the British public". Finally, I think it's awkward to have "plays played their part". I think the best solution would be to move the information about the theatrical revival earlier, to just before the sentence "The visual arts played ...". The current location is essentially a flashback, but you want to place the exhibitions in the context of the revival, not vice versa. Moving the information higher might also separate the two instances of "reintroduce" to the point where the second instance will serve to recall the context of the first, rather than echoing it too closely. I was going to try a rewrite but I think this is more surgery than I feel safe attempting as a copyeditor.
  • In describing a house, I think "two-story" is more usually spelled "two-storey" in Britain. I haven't made this change as I'm not confident my British English isn't corrupted, but a quick Google search for "two-storey" vs. "two-story", each restricted to "site:uk", gives a nine to one ratio in favour of the "e".
Really? Sounds unlikely. It should be storey. Johnbod (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think "storey" is right too. I'll try making that edit and see if they change it back again. Mike Christie (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Can any dates be given for the Historic Gallery mentioned in the Legacy section?
  • They also became the topic of criticism: I suspect this should read either "a topic" or "the subject"; to me, "the topic" implies those works of criticism focused primarily on these works.
  • I was slightly surprised to find a detailed list of the art in the illustrated edition and the folio, but no listing of the paintings; then I recalled that they are the source of the prints in the folio. However, per the "Reaction" section, which says around 40 are known but many are not, it's clear that there are pictures that did not survive in any form and hence the list of prints in the folio can't be the full list of paintings in the gallery. So are there any paintings known to have existed which are not included in the folio list? If so, it might be worth listing them.

As for copyediting, I found almost nothing to fix. This is one of the cleanest articles I've tried to copyedit. Great work, and a fascinating and informative article. Mike Christie (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything's been dealt with; if I weren't supporting at FAC I would be now. Mike Christie (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth consulting the Vision of the Armed Head question

I've got a source saying that this painting was created for a 1794 gallery in Dublin by Fuseli, rather than for the Boydell Gallery. I'm wondering if the image belongs here or if there is something I'm missing (more than one version?) My source is: "An Irish Shakespeare Gallery" by Robin Hamlyn in The Burlington Magazine Aug 1978 Volume: 120 Issue: 905 Pages: 515-529. Wrad (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That could easily be - it is not easy to determine what paintings hung in the gallery. I wanted to have a Fuseli. Too bad. Will look for a different one. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SurveyofLondon_2930 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery/Archive_1&oldid=1142378551"