Talk:'Tis Pity She's a Whore

Note
Shuffled the wording around a little, and changed some spellings. Added death count, not sure of the relevance of this but I feel it is inkeeping with the theme of the Jacobean Tragedy. --Liss 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

'the text is slightly ambiguous and could refer to Annabella's body being burnt' None too sure about this, as the comment referring to the burning appears in conversation about Putana. I shall leave it in though, until someone wiser than I can confirm or deny... --Liss 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not too sure about the above, the burning is obviously about Putana and not Annabella. I will have a ponder on this one.


 * My edition (New Mermaid, ed. Martin Wiggins) annotates this as being ambiguous. I haven't got the book with me, but I can get more specific references if anyone is interested. DavidCh0 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

-Not sure about the questions raised above, but regarding another issue in the article, shouldn't the play be referred to as a Caroline drama (not a Jacobean drama) since it was written during the reign of Charles I (not James)? If so, then the author may want to reconsider the phrase "in typical Jacobean Tragedy style, most of the characters..." since "Jacobean Tragedy" may not be applicable to plays not written in the Jacobean era.

Although written during the reign of Charles I, it was early on in his reign as King, and as theplays of this era have very similar properties to those of the earlier Jacobean era, they tend to be collectively known as Jacobean rather than Caroline as they have no particular distinguishing features of their own. -Liss 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove clean up tag
I've removed the clean up tag and replaced it with as a more specific tag of what needs doing. Struds 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Many mistakes in the sypnosys
I've just read the play on adelaide.edu.au (with a few cross checks on the facsimile). Then I had a look at the synopsys here and I saw many mistakes (more than five, but I didn't count exactly). For instance, the last mistake was on "Vasques intervenes, wounding Giovanni before ordering the Banditti to finish the job", while the text of J. Ford is: "They [the bandits] surround and wound him". I wonder if these many errors are on purpose, to detect if someone read the sypnosys on Wikipedia instead of going through the complete play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.133.112 (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I wonder if these many errors are on purpose, to detect if someone read the sypnosys on Wikipedia instead of going through the complete play."
 * What a good idea! ;-)p
 * —DIV (138.194.12.224 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC))

Title spelling
The OED has the title as "'Tis pit t y she e 's a whore". Is this the correct spelling of the original? And if so, shouldn't it be respected in the article? —DIV (138.194.12.224 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I don't think it's common Wikipedia practice to retain archaic spellings; all the other titles in Category:1633 plays seem to use modern spelling. What's more, this play is always performed and referred to by this name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Putana
In Italian 'puttana' means 'whore'. I suppose it is hardly a coincidence that one of the characters has this name. But I'm not sure if you guys knew this already but think it's not worth to incorporate this observation to the main text?  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 11:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No objection is there's a source noting that. Google translate confirms the point, but we shouldn't put interesting things we notice -- as distinguished from interesting things that have been reported elsewhere -- in the article. TJRC (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple:
 * TJRC (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * TJRC (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * TJRC (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)