Talk:The Country Wife

Last words
Magnificent article, but I think you already know what my "but" is going to be about. I so far prefer the innocence of Harold Webber's vision of the cuckolding game to Canfield or Sedgewick as to be inexpressible. This is not the place for an argument, but a generic and an ideological analysis both can suggest that there is still an "us and them" involved, that the game is between men and women of self-awareness and wit and wealth and those who have either wealth or wit, but not both. In the play, Harcourt represents the way out -- the retiring Mafiosi, as it were -- but the constant creation of class through sexuality is an attempt at ideological definition in an age of the Restoration. We forget too readily that this was not an ordinary world and not a stable one. After the Restoration, the aristocracy had to reassure itself and the commoners that there was something special involved. From the point of view of propaganda aimed at the aristocrats and against the masses, this play says, "Yes, there are rich cits around, and there are faded aristocrats who hung around England during the Interregnum, but we're the new guys. We're the wit kings.  We're the aristocrats who are naturally superior." Horner is able to be most potent through impotence, and Pinchwife is most impotent with his desires of consummation. It's a war between the right kind of aristocrat and the wrong kind, and all of this transgressive class gender homosocial stuff seems to me to work only if this were a world of established verities. Geogre 02:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What I went for wasn't my own favorites, but illustrations of what's out there, and what has had influence. And, to the extent possible, something comprehensible to someone who doesn't know the play. Complexities and fine shades would make the section, well, long. It's already too long IMO. And would make it hard. Sedgwick is a very useful illustration—influential, and can be summarized in a sentence. Keeping it simple was my big criterion. I suspect people may find it thorny anyway. It's a pity that right at the end is the only logical place for modern criticism, I'd much rather end on something potentially fun—well, for my perverted tastes—like the influence of the actors. Bishonen | Talk 03:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's just right as it is. Another cracker, Bish. Filiocht 15:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your wish was my command, Bish. I added the light literary anecdote as an end piece.  I could not find an elegant way to make explicit the point that Beerbohm was hugely knowledgable about drama; if he was vague about the play, it was really out of fashion in 1899. --Theo  (Talk) 08:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha, in that case maybe I'll take a shot at merging Beerbohm into the "Critical history" section, it should be easier to make the point there, as part of a discussion about how the play was neither acted, read, nor discussed. What is The Country Wench? I don't know it, and the British Library doesn't seem to either, at least not their online catalogue. Unless it's my search skills as usual. Maybe Swinburne really did have the only copy in existence. Thanks, Theo. Did you have any comments to share about the questions I asked on Peer review/The Country Wife/archive1? Bishonen | Talk 12:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I can find no trace of The Country Wench except in this story. There is no reason to believe that Beerbohm made it up (his integrity has not been questioned, to my knowledge) but it is not listed in the British Library catalogue (according to a colleague who has checked at St Pancras) and Swinburne would still be comforted to know that the Bodleian has no copy.  My last resort would be the Stationers' List but I have no imminent plans to visit the City. --Theo  (Talk) 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anecdotes?
Hmmm. I do not mean to be ingracious, but the Literary Anecdotes section is problematic, to me. First, there is one anecdote, so the title is improper. Second, it kind of diverts the reader from the subject at the very end of the article. I'm going to scale it back and move the information, but I don't want to offend. The information is interesting, but it kind of sticks out right now. Geogre 13:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No offence … As I explained above, I added that section because I could not find an elegant way to weave it in. Bish, I believe, is on the case. --Theo (Talk) 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caption
This caption, while hilarious, is probably not appropriate for this page. Vircum 08:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. It's corrected already and I have welcomed the vandal to Wikipedia. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. If all vandal edits were that funny, I'd never use rollback again. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * hahaha, that was good for a chuckle this morning. --CGW | talk 14:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha! I liked it, too. I reverted it with a heavy heart. &mdash; mark &#9998; 23:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?
Should the article have one? &mdash;Ashley Y 23:07, 2005 May 26 (UTC)


 * Doubtful. See WP:SPOILER. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lede Image
I am at a loss as to why User:Utgard Loki accuses me a of a bad faith edit. Please assume good faith.

In any case, rather than engaging in an edit war, I'll just ask here: as a purely technical matter, shouldn't the image of the first edition page (or perhaps a photo or drawing of a famous scene or some such) be preferred in the lede rather than an image of the playwright since the article is about the play rather than the man? The picture of the author fits appropriately with the "Background" section (the picture of Charles II is, in my judgment, more decorative than helpful, but I'd be fine leaving it if only it didn't clutter that section once the author's picture is moved down). I explained this in my edit summary, and I think this is far from a controversial edit. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that a small image, like that of Wycherley, is better at the outset. Before he publishes the play, in the article's discussion, he is a dramatist, in the article.  In other words, I prefer showing the title page when the article gets to the discussion of the event of the play.  Also, that particular painting of Wycherley tells a reader instantly the era and attitude of the play.  Those courtly curls in the wig, that disdainful glance, those bright colors -- the portrait says "Restoration comedy" pretty clearly.  It could be up or down in the article, but, for myself, I prefer it at the outset.  I also think that Featured Articles are assessed by the FAC voters on all elements, including look.  When an article passes FAC, we need to be extra conservative about changes in layout, because they were pretty consciously constructed with particular placement and pretty consciously approved in that form.  Geogre 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, George. As one who is not particularly studied in Restoration comedy or fashion through the ages (though I'm also not entirely unfamiliar with either), I don't find that the image of Wycherley communicates the precise era instantly. Moreover, I think a case could be made that the typesetting of the play would also communicate such temporal information to those in the know. To reiterate then, since the article is about the play (that's what the lede is about), not the man, I think the image of the play belongs first. I'll not be heartbroken if it is left the way it currently stands, but of course I would like to see the Wikipedia be organized in the most logical and aesthetically pleasing way possible -- two admittedly subjective goals. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see this discussion was never finished and no consensus reached. I tend to agree with Flex that the image of the title page would be more appropriate than the painting of Wycherley. The painting itself more appropriately belongs in the top position in an article on the man himself, whereas a Title page instantly conveys that the article is about the play. Smatprt (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I really disagree. If you read the article, you'll see that this Restoration comedy is a bit notorious.  It is the symbol of rakishness, decadence, love of sex, and idle play.  Every stereotype of naughty people in ruffles, as it were, owes much to this era and its eros, and this play is a supreme expression.  Even today, when people study this play in their literature classes, it's as the high point of the sexually playful comedies of the era.  The typeface tells us about the printers, but that picture of Wycherley, all pretty and languid, tells us about the era.  If you compare the typeset of this page with the typeset of, say, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, by William Law, you won't see much difference, but Law and Wycherley share nothing else.  The typeset and title page here isn't going to be that different from the Puritan Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, too, but the portrait of Newton says "severe religion," while that of Wycherley says, "courtier."  Geogre (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to have been mentioned by anybody in the discussion, but as the main author of the page and its layout, I thought a portrait of Wycherley from 1675 was peculiarly relevant to The Country Wife, and a serendipitous fit for the top right position. Just my opinion; I agree that there are also some good reasons to use the title page. The relevance of the year 1675 is left as an exercise for the reader. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Good points all (and a great article - I love the image of the early cast list, btw). Speaking of images, does anyone know if this image [] is in the public domain? If so, it would convey all the points you have made, and go even further! It's a great early photo in any case, so enjoy it, everyone! Smatprt (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded the image under fair use. It is here, Image:Country Wife in 1936.jpg. I've inserted into the article lower down, but might you consider it for the lede position? I think it addresses the issues raised here and depicts the play better than the painting of the author (imho). Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm... well, I never use the PeoplePlay material for Wikipedia. It's copyright and allowed to be re-used for educatonal and non-commercial purposes only, This means Wikipedia can use it but not our mirrors and such. Plus, Featured articles are supposed to have free images only, not Fair Use. Thanks, Smatprt, but I didn't dare use any photo of a "modern" performance for this article. I think you'd better remove it. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Done. Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revival and possible add to critical history
The Country Wife was recently performed in London[]. Might be worth adding a note to that effect in the stage history section? Also, might want to include Milhous and Hume's chapter on The Country Wife in Producible Interpretation: Eight English Plays, 1675-1707 in the discussion of the critical history. It sums up the "critical muddle," as they call it, and provides a helpful table showing how almost 100 years of critical debate comes down, in most cases, to how critics cast the characters in their minds--though almost all simply assert that Horner and co. are a particular way, as though they couldn't easily be performed in a variety of radically different but possible ways. Is Horner sexy and fun? Aggressive and scary? The recent production at the Haymarket made him out to be a sleaze, but a pro-libertine production wouldn't. Anyway, it's an important part of the critical history and can be dealt with very briefly as an attempt to read the play using theatrical context and the ways in which it could be staged in real life, not just imagined. Norman Holland's reading, for instance, of Harcourt's plot being the "right way" is simply impossible. In performance, Harcourt just doesn't pull that kind of focus. It's also worth remembering that Horner gets off scott free, unlike the many punished/reformed wild gentlemen in other low London comedies. Great page, btw. Eawonder (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's not a lot of hope of anybody else replying to questions about Restoration comedy—it's not a major, important subject like Pokemon, or the biography of a porn star, is it! —so I'd better chip in again, as long as I'm here. (I'm phasing myself out, so you'd better plan on becoming a practiced contributor as soon as possible.) Anyway. It seems to me that your last two points, about Norman Holland's reading being impossible.and about Horner failing to be punished, are already pretty much on the page as it is: the first in "First performance" (based on the original cast), and the second in "Modern criticism", at the very end (based on Douglas Canfield). And basically, hopefully the hundred years of critical debate are there too, though not based on Hume/Milhous' table. Or is there some important part of the critical history in H/M that I've missed out? It's a while since I read it. Anyway, how about you putting in something about the recent performance you mention, and about the Producible interpretation chapter? That would be very helpful. Best, Bishonen | talk 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the helpful reply. I have been posting ideas rather than making changes because most of these are your pages, and you have done a good job setting them up a certain way. Didn't want to step on toes. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eawonder (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Might need a Featured Article review
Needs a lot of work, is anyone watching this page anymore? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Stupid people need tags put in, really?
The lede says that the title contains a bawdy pun, and some graffiti artist (tagger) has put, "Needs further explanation" atop that. Really? Hamlet says to Ophelia, "You thought I meant country matters?" Then he says that "nothing" is a fine thing to talk about when between a lady's legs. The "country/c-nt" pun was alive in the ears of audiences for Shakespeare in 1604. In 1674, it would have been a glaring billboard, especially given the way that Wycherley was presenting a thumb in the eye of all Puritans by having female actresses, "encouraging" the great game (discussed in Sexual Underworlds of the Restoration) whereby men measure virility by the number of married women they "steal" from other men, and ladies seek a maximum number of "conquests" while keeping a pure "reputation." Oh, but the lede needs to explain that "country" is a pun on pudenda? It sure is easy to spray paint articles, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.127.134 (talk • contribs) 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because the pun is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else, and it seems likely the person who added the tag didn't get the reference. An explanation has since been added. In the future, please keep your comments civil and avoid personal attacks like "stupid". -- Beland (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

URFA/2020
This has very solid bones, but largely lacks inline citations. It appears that this was written back when only a general list of references was expected on WP. While I have no doubts about the quality of the content and writing style, inline citations have become an expectation since the FAC. Can somebody with access to the sources please add inlines? Hog Farm Bacon 06:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)