Talk:Analytical Review/Archive 1

GA review
I read this several times over without finding anything major to mention; essentially, it's a very good article. Here are some points to work on:


 * "republic of letters" should be "Republic of Letters" surely?
 * Good question. I thought since it wasn't a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized. However, I see that a couple of books on the topic do capitalize it, so I have capitalized it now. Awadewit | talk  12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Dissenting" may be unclear to some, although it's hard to suggest where to put "English Dissenter" in the second sentence of Forerunners.
 * "English Dissenter" is not a commonly used phrase (I've never seen it used in the scholarship). I think that the wikipedia page was titled that to distinguish it from dissenter. A better choice might have been "Dissenter (English)". Awadewit | talk  12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Her over 200 reviews" sounds a little awkward to me.
 * Now reads: Her reviews, of which there are over 200, are probably signed by the initials "M", "W", or "T" and are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. Awadewit | talk  12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason why most of "Organization and reviewers" is about Wollstonecraft? (I suppose there's a lack of secondary sources about the other reviewers?)
 * So far I haven't found any information on other reviewers. If I do, I will add it. Awadewit | talk  12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you take it to FAC in the future. CloudNine (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is enough material for an FA-level article, unfortunately. Too many gaps - like the other reviewers. :) Thanks for the review! Awadewit | talk  12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
It would be nice to get an image of the Anti-Jacobin image "A Charm for a Democracy" that pillories the AR. Awadewit | talk  22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Geddes
Geddes lived in London and had close connections to Wollstonecraft and Johnson's friend, Henry Fuseli.

Does this mean Geddes had close connections to WM and to HF? Or that he had close connections to HF who was a friend of WM and JJ?

Thanks for an interesting read, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now reads: "Geddes lived in London and had close connections both to Wollstonecraft and Johnson's friend, Henry Fuseli". It is supposed to mean both MW and HF - is this clearer? (Thanks!) Awadewit | talk  09:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah :) Nice work on the BE, by the way. I found hardly anything. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A few questions and comments

 * "This practice was meant to prevent any seeming collusion between the reviewers and the authors reviewed, although this did not work out in practice." Would it be accurate to say "the appearance of collusion" rather than "any seeming collusion"? What did not work out in practice: avoiding the appearance of collusion or avoiding collusion? If the latter, the second clause might be revised to say: "although [occasionally] such collusion occurred." Simmaren (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * People reviewed books they had an interest in seeing sell well. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft positively reviewed her own book as well as the books of friends. Are you saying the wording "the appearance of of collusion" would be better? If you think so, please go right ahead and alter it. Awadewit | talk  02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "In repackaging other publications for its readers, the Analytical Review participated in the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century." The reference to the "encyclopedic movement" needs some background or context for readers unfamiliar with it, if only a one sentence squib in the footnote or a cross-reference for further information. (The "encyclopedic movement" appears to need its own WP article). Simmaren (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I live in an eighteenth-century bubble. See what you think of my first stab. (By the way the Encyclopedie page is disgraceful.) Awadewit | talk  02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent changes, just what I thought was needed. Simmaren (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lead, you might consider substituting "chief reviewer" (the term used in the body) for "reviewing head". Perhaps it's my mood today, but the latter phrase conjures up some bad 1950s science fiction. :) Simmaren (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the topic of organization, it is unclear to me what the difference was between "editors" and "reviewers" and which did what. Were reviewers/editors/other contributors paid? Simmaren (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no difference - I just didn't want to use the same word over and over again. They were indeed paid - I just couldn't find out how much. Should we mention they were paid, though? Awadewit | talk  02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, along with the fact that the amounts are not known. Simmaren (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. Awadewit | talk  03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "startling" is the right word to use for a one-word description of Burke's Reflections (although it may simply reflect your source). Perhaps "polemical" would work as well? Simmaren (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no good one-word description of the book that started the Revolution Controversy. I am hesitant to use "polemical". What about "surprising"? The idea I am alluding to here is that Burke's book surprised both his supporters and his enemies - they expected him to support the French revolutionaries. Awadewit | talk  02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now what you were getting at. I would either omit the adjective or provide the brief background you've given here in a footnote. I haven't read volume 2 of Lock's biography of Burke yet, although it is taking up shelf space at home. Simmaren (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the place to explain all of that - it is just so complicated and tangential to the point being made in the paragraph. How about "politically controversial" Reflections? Awadewit | talk  03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Simmaren (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The comparative information under "Organization and reviewers" on circulation numbers and the contextual information on their meaning is very helpful. Simmaren (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad - I was so excited to find that. Such information is hard to come by for eighteenth-century publications, as you well know. Awadewit | talk  02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Under "Anti-Jacobin Review," there is a missing quotation at the end of the penultimate line. Simmaren (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone changed the code and the quote disappeared. :) Fixed. Awadewit | talk  02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dissolution and brief resurrection": given that the political forces that encouraged the founding of the Anti-Jacobin Review were likely (in my perhaps insufficiently informed view) to have been the same as those responsible for Johnson's prosecution for seditious libel, the claim of responsibility made by the Anti-Jacobin should perhaps be given some weight. Simmaren (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that scholars don't give that claim any weight. There is no scholar who says "The AJR helped bring about the demise of the AR" (at least I haven't found it). Remember, that their print runs only overlapped for a few months. In my view, it is the political forces that are more likely the cause, since they had been building up for a longer period of time. Awadewit | talk  02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that the point should be added to the article (I assumed that if you had reliable sources on this point you'd already have done so), only to spotlight the (nefarious) political forces in a side comment. Simmaren (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your description of the professed neutrality of the Analytical perhaps shows one origin of the idea of NPOV? Simmaren (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Anti-Jacobin Review is another. :) Awadewit | talk  02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuseli
I did a quick search and found this. It might be useful, it might not. Feel free to do with it what you want. "beginning in 1788 and continuing for a decade, Fuseli wrote fully and frequently on German literature, among many other subjects, for Joseph Johnson's Analytical Review, and even translated passages from Herder in his reviews. It was only logical that Fuseli's role as a diffuser of German literature, especially in its bearing on aesthetics and the arts, under the sponsorship of Johnson, should not terminate with the end of the Analytical Review"

and "In the November and December 1788 issues of the Analytical Review, he addressed himself to the merits and failings of the Copenhagen edition of the Edda Seamundar Hinns Fróda, published the year before. Fuseli's review was immensely learned and showed the influence of the theories of J. J. Bodmer, his professor at Ziirich's Caroline College, about the poetry of the northern peoples, yet it was clearly the review of a painter." Source: Allentuck, Marcia. "Henry Fuseli and J. G. Herder's Ideen Zur Philosophie Der Geschichte Der Menschheit in Britain: An Unremarked Connection". Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 35, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1974), pp. 113-120. (Can be found on JSTOR)--Peter Andersen (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fascinating. However, as I am sure you noticed, the entire essay is an argument for why the contributor known as "F" is Fuseli. The author is disputing another author who makes a different claim for Fuseli's authorship. Do you know if there is general agreement on Fuseli's authorship of these reviews? I was not aware of any, the way one could argue that most Wollstonecraft scholars accept Myers' claim. Awadewit | talk  18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I should note that I unfortunately know nothing of the subject and can therefore not be of much help. I just did a quick search and stumbled upon the text, which I thought might be helpful. Whether the source is reliable and whether there is general agreement about the authorship, I do not know. If you can get a hold of The Mind of Henry Fuseli. Selections from His Writings with an Introductory Study by Eudo C. Mason you might get more information. From, Fuseli Studies. The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 96, No. 617, Theodore Gericault (Aug., 1954), pp. 260-261:

"it contains excerpts from his contributions to the Analytical Review, equally published anonymously - mainly concerned with questions of literature -many of which Mason has identified. This is all the more important as, in my view, it is precisely in these anonymous writings that Fuseli speaks his mind most openly" --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know if this material explains how the Fuseli material was identified as being by Fuseli? This has become a big point in the FAC. Thanks for the citations. Awadewit | talk  04:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but I would imagine Mason explains this. --Peter Andersen (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have requested this book, as it is the one Allentuck disputes in his 1974 article. I will try to untangle the mess. Awadewit | talk  04:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)