Talk:Characters of Shakespear's Plays

WikiProject Shakespeare assessment

I've added the project template with a rating as B-quality and Mid-importance. The quality is probably closer to GA than B, but as anything higher than B requires a process be followed I've set it accordingly. The priority for the project I've set to Mid, since the various articles on Shakespeare himself and on the plays there must take precedence. Please do feel free to change that if you disagree with my reasoning. --Xover (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

In the first paragraphs of the Essays section:

To say that Hazlitt was apprenticed in the theatre is misleading, suggesting that he was an actor. He had a lifelong love of the theatre and worked for some years as a drama critic, but I wouldn't think of that as the same thing as being "apprenticed in the theatre".

I wouldn't mention Edmund Kean in this context. He was an actor by profession, and it is not likely he would have sided with Lamb and Hazlitt's belief that Shakespeare's plays are better read than viewed on stage.

You say that Hazlitt approved of Schlegel's method. It would help if you could briefly state what that method is. It is also true that Hazlitt disagreed with what he thought of as a "mystical" element in Schlegel's criticism, even though, yes, you are right, he thought highly of it for the most part.

"The purpose of the work is to study the form of tragedy." Only to a small degree. The purpose was to discuss all of the plays, with emphasis on the characters. Hazlitt believed that the tragedies were the greatest of the plays and the four you mention the best of those, as you say. But it is misleading to state simply that the purpose of Characters is to study the form of tragedy. Hazlitt doesn't even spend that much time considering dramatic form. --Alan W (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that in terms of expansion, Kean, Lamb, and Schlegel will each need their own paragraphs. That would fix the problem, no? Also, on the "form of tragedy" - I pulled that from Kinnaird. p. 173 and onwards "his overriding concern with tragedy", "Kean-inspired impetus of the book as a defense of Shakespeare's supremacy as a tragic dramatist", "Yet this statement of tragedy's moral power...", "Thus his fascination with the 'truth' of Shakespeare's mastery of 'passion' could still be felt as one with a faith in the transfiguring beneficence of tragedy...", etc. And the "apprentice in theatre" should have said theatre criticism. It could be further elaborated as Kinnaird does to say that he did so by attending plays. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe separate paragraphs. It's a matter of separating and clarifying the ideas expressed. Clarifying, for example, that you don't mean that the book is only about tragedy or only about the dramatic form of tragedy. As for Kean, yes, Kean inspired Hazlitt in some ways; again, that inspiration just has to be distinguished from the belief that Hazlitt shared with Lamb, that Shakespeare's plays are experienced to the fullest by reading them, not by seeing them on stage. If Kean had anything to do with that idea, perhaps it was by reminding Hazlitt that, as good as Kean was, even he could not always rise to the demands of certain characters and situations. I think Kinnaird intimates as much on pp. 172-73. Anyhow, I will read on, and comment more later. --Alan W (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus

It's late here and I haven't time to comment much today. I will focus on one sentence:

"As he was treating the work with such an analysis, he slowly became a Whig in political terms and began to accept the monarchial governmental form; to Hazlitt, the problem was not the monarchy but corrupt ministers taking advantage of monarchs."

This assertion needs to be set in perspective by a broader view of Hazlitt's thinking on the subject. To Hazlitt, in most instances, monarchy was the problem. Hazlitt detested the idea of absolute monarchy, showing nothing but contempt for most kings. Of hereditary kings, he wrote: "Any one above the rank of an ideot is supposed capable of exercising the highest functions of royal state." —"What Is the People?" (The Champion, 1817). "We make kings of men, and Gods of stocks and stones.... We only want a peg or loop to hang our idle fancies on, a puppet to dress up...." —"On the Spirit of Monarchy" (The Liberal, 1823). He did grudgingly accept the governmental form of constitutional monarchy, however. In the same essay, "A constitutional king ... is a servant of the public, a representative of the people's wants and wishes, dispensing justice and mercy according to law.... All power is but an unabated nuisance, a barbarous assumption, an aggravated injustice, that is not directed to the common good." --Alan W (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about using the later works in that section. Perhaps down in the theme section? I would hate to retroactively apply his works back on it. I've only had a few instances of that, and that was only when he said something on Shakespeare and a source used it. If a source doesn't apply the later works, then it would be a problem with original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"What Is the People?" is not a "later work." It first appeared in 1817, the same year that Characters was published. But I didn't mean to suggest that you cite these specific works. The quotations just provide examples of Hazlitt's views on monarchy. I have never seen anyone, least of all Hazlitt himself, say that to him, the problem was not the monarchy but corrupt ministers.--Alan W (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Another sentence: "The character Coriolanus needs to be played in an aristocratic manner, and actors failed in portraying Coriolanus correctly because of their own republican sympathies." Edmund Kean seemed to give a republican interpretation of Coriolanus, but John Kemble had not, and Hazlitt thought him more suitable for the role, as pointed out by Bromwich, p. 318. Hazlitt is talking only about the different ways Kemble and Kean played the role (plebeian vs. aristocrat), not actors with republican sympathies in general. --Alan W (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Was the original spelled without the "e" at the end of Shakespeare's name? :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The article uses variable spellings here. Without the e appears to have been the original spelling, but it also seems to have been normalized to include the e in later editions. One example I found appeared to be the third edition edited by Hazlitt's son; but this could also have been a later imposition. Ottava, can you clarify here? --Xover (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice Hazlitt inscribes the book to Charles Lamb. Is this worth a brief mention in this article somewhere? Do the relevant sources mention Lamb in connection with the subject of this article? --Xover (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only were Lamb and Hazlitt close friends for over twenty-five years, more to the point here is that Hazlitt agreed with Lamb that Shakespeare's plays were best when read rather than viewed on stage, and Lamb was a specialist in the literature of the Elizabethan period; Hazlitt greatly respected Lamb for that. My feeling is that, yes, it would be good if mention of this inscription could somehow be worked logically into the article. There must be something in a secondary source relevant to this matter. --Alan W (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Immediate review uses the spelling. 2nd edition uses the spelling. Edinburgh Review immediately afterward did not. Shakespeare had something like 36 possible ways of spelling his name. Just be happy that only two show up. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right. The spelling "Shakespeare" was not really fully established until later years. In Hazlitt's day the dramatist's name was still often spelled differently, depending on publishers' differing house rules. The first edition of the book this article is about definitely spelled it "Shakespear". As you (Ottava Rima) say, the contemporary Edinburgh Review, in its review of Hazlitt's book, spelled it "Shakespeare", which happens to be the spelling that stuck. --Alan W (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan, I know my speculation and some that I've read, but do you know if it was done for political reasons? I've heard ideas behind it, but it would be interesting if you knew of anything off hand that was more definitive than just a few idle academics theorizing over the differences at the time (especially knowing the background of the Edinburgh Review vs, say, London reviews that referred to Shakespeare in other ways). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on the evolution of English orthography. But I doubt that the Edinburgh Review differed from the printer or publishers of Characters in political leanings or from Hazlitt himself in that regard. The editor of the Edinburgh was Francis Jeffrey, whose choice I am assuming it was to spell the name "Shakespeare". He and Hazlitt generally respected each other and were mostly on the same side politically. So I doubt that politics had anything to do with the difference of spelling. --Alan W (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean ER vs Hazlitt, but more of Scotland vs London. The Scots had a strange habit of slipping in key spelling differences. But yeah, just seems to be speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Scotland vs. London. Could be. But, as you say, without anything to back up our ideas, it's just speculation. --Alan W (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Macbeth

Except for some awkwardness in phrasing, which can always be smoothed out at a later time, the Hamlet and Lear sections seem fine to me. For the most part, so does the Macbeth. Since I am commenting on what I think are the larger issues at this time, however, I will quote one sentence here that I think is a problem. You (Ottava Rima, for those who haven't been following this discussion) wrote: "Before Hazlitt, Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." You cite Kinnaird in support of this statement. But Kinnaird doesn't really say this. He says, "...perhaps none of Shakespeare's tragedies had been more often accused pf 'Gothic' crudity and barbarism." Kinnaird says nothing about prior criticism of the contradictions in Macbeth's character, just that the play had been often seen as crude and barbaric. The criticism of contradictions in Macbeth's character do, however, enter into Kinnaird's discussion when he notes that (Elmer Edgar) Stoll did make such a criticism of contradictions in Macbeth's character. But Stoll was writing in 1933! Kinnaird points out that, in Hazlitt's insistence on the underlying identity of Macbeth's character, it is as if he were anticipating Stoll's criticism and responding to it. So I think you have to revise your statement, which attributes this criticism of Macbeth's character to a time before Hazlitt, when it was really made more than a century later. --Alan W (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was basing the statement off of what Kinnaird says Hazlitt's defense was in the lines that followed after. You cannot defend something unless there were attacks on it. Kinnaird states: "We may best follow the line of Hazlitt's defense if we remind ourselves that the issues of the play's credibility is by no means dead today", which suggests that the ideas used by Stoll are the same statements Hazlitt was defending against because Stoll is using a very old argument. Does that make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hazlitt was arguing against some previous contention that the play was not very believable, yes. But I still also think that to assert specifically that there were contentions that the play lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character is going a little further than your source warrants. Kinnaird very pointedly brings in Stoll as the advocate of that idea, and that was much later. It may be that Hazlitt himself took note of the seeming contradictions in Macbeth's character and then shows that Shakespeare's genius was to preserve the character's unity among all its extremes. However that may be, I do not believe that you should state flat out that "Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." Can you find an earlier source that says that? Johnson? Coleridge? Then fine, cite that source. But Kinnaird does not quite say that. --Alan W (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Hazlitt's chapter on "Macbeth" again. Even without Kinnaird's statements, Hazlitt's own commentary seems to support the idea only that the play was thought of before him as crude and Gothic. He himself points to Macbeth's character, to how Macbeth's actions result in part from his reaction to circumstances, and to how his character yet retains its essential unity. "The leading features in the character of Macbeth are striking enough, and they form what may be thought of at first only a bold, rude, Gothic outline. By comparing it with other characters of the same author we shall perceive the absolute truth and identity which is observed in the midst of the giddy whirl and rapid career of events." At this point, I don't think we have any definite sources that would support anyone before Hazlitt criticizing the play because there are contradictions in Macbeth's character—or anyone after Hazlitt either, until Stoll. If Hazlitt is defending his idea, the only thing we can see for sure is that it is against anyone's thinking that the character is not a unified one; but no one before then is pointed to as actually having said that much in such a specific way. --Alan W (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinnaird's wording was very clear that Stoll was using the same arguments as those who Hazlitt responded against. However, I will remove the word because I would rather not argue over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't take it out - Kinnaird relies on the above in order to introduce why Hazlitt is defending against "contradictions" in Macbeth. The Hazlitt quote that follows is what Kinnaird is referring to and can only be understood by explaining why Hazlitt is talking about it. Not discussing this as Kinnaird put it would remove the ability to discuss Macbeth at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What Kinnaird says: "There was good cause for Hazlitt to be concerned with Macbeth 's unity; for perhaps none of the Shakespeare's tragedies had been more often accused of 'Gothic' crudity and barbarism. We may best follow the line of Hazlitt's defense if we remind ourselves that the issue of the play's credibility is by no means dead today; the issue has reappeared in Stoll's celebrated contention that the essential paradox in Macbeth—that so good and noble a man should become a murderer and a butchering tyrant—makes sense only as theatre, not as 'nature' or 'life'."

The words "by no means dead today" and "reappeared" are Kinnaird stating that contradictions aspect was used as a criticism.

The words "by no means dead today" are taken out of context. The context is that "the issue of the play's credibility is by no means dead today...." I grant that it is possible that the contradictions in Macbeth's character were already being seen as something less than credible. I just don't think that Kinnaird places more weight on contradictions in Macbeth's character than on other aspects of the play taken as lacking credibility—except in his forward-looking reference to Stoll. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinnaird then explains, "There is, to be sure, a 'contradictory principle' at work throughout the play; but the contradictoriness of its sudden 'transitions,' whereby 'every passion brings in its fellow-contrary,' must be seen in the context of a primitive and violent world 'at the farthest bounds of nature,' where 'the action is desperate and the reaction is dreadful.'"

The quote from Hazlitt following the summary by Kinnaird is drawn from what Kinnaird says is Hazlitt's response to the argument Stoll puts forth, and Kinnaird states that Hazlitt is almost prophetic because his words directly match up and contradict Stoll's.

Yet, it is also possible to interpret Kinnaird as implying that no one before Hazlitt had specifically pointed to contradictions in Macbeth's character to the extent that Hazlitt did here. I think that critics of drama in the eighteenth century were more concerned about violations of the Aristotelian classical unities. (Kinnaird mentions that too, but not in the sentence that we are arguing about. You include that above to support your argument, yet it does not appear in your writing about Macbeth; if it did, I would have less reason to complain.) If someone before Hazlitt had specifically pointed out contradictions in Macbeth's character, Kinnaird would have no need to look forward a century for a full exposition of the thesis that Hazlitt appears to argue against. You argue as well as one could, I think, in favor of your point. Yet, my own feeling is that it is still a stretch to say flat out: "Before Hazlitt, Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." It was seen as lacking credibility in a number of ways, including violation of the unities, its barbarism, and so on, and maybe contradictions in character are implied as part of that in Kinnaird's statement, but to make that bald a statement about it, to my mind, does not convey the the full sense of Kinnaird's argument. Well, maybe this is yet another of those areas where we will have to "agree to disagree". --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC

I would rather not have to agree to disagree - I would like a compromise. I will try to dig up some stuff on Johnson (as I worked on the pages related to him and he was one of the key figures in mind when Hazlitt was criticizing the previous Shakespeare critics) and see if Johnson is explicit in saying there is a contradiction. I just want the Hazlitt quote to work its way in. If you can find a different way to preface/lead into the quote, then please do. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is any further question on the matter, I can either send Duncan Wu an email or just go across town and visit his office and ask him about his perspective on what the passage means. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very interested to hear Wu's take on this matter. If he should choose to invite the two of us to discuss this over a beer (I think you get my allusion :-) I would try to make it. I live only a few hundred miles away and it might be possible for me to get down there over a weekend. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll email him when I have a chance. I do not know if he is in town yet (the semester has not yet started). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems to work. Good job. See, I am glad I forced you to stick around and help. :) Before we know it, this article of ours could be FA level. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice

The matter here is right on target, and gives an accurate idea of Hazlitt's concerns, but I'm thinking that the manner of presenting it could use some work. It's a matter of general organization. I would start with the older, traditional view of Shylock; then proceed to Kean's revolutionary reinterpretation of that character and Hazlitt's championing of Kean's interpretation; and only then to a statement of Hazlitt's focus in Characters, with the extract from it quoted. --Alan W (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a similar thing when I was writing the articles. However, I did not know how much "background" I wanted to provide. Should we start such sections with a paragraph, perhaps 6-7 sentences, that describes the previous views? We could also limit it to sections like this where the revision of the character is important (as Shylock was a major reinterpretation). If we rework it, I would suggest taking the first sentence of the second paragraph and using it as a first sentence of a new paragraph that then goes into the previous views. Then follow it with a statement saying Hazlitt split from the traditional view and that will lead into the second paragraph. The long quote would be moved down as a third paragraph. The fourth would then talk about the ramifications of Hazlitt's support of Kean. That way we have past, immediate past, Hazlitt, and after Hazlitt separated into four different sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Something along these lines would probably be fine for this section, and I will keep your suggestions in mind when I try to rework it (not right now, as I want to finish reading the whole article first). I'm not sure that this scheme should necessarily be applied everywhere. But definitely some food for thought here. --Alan W (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restructured this section as promised, also rounding it out by expanding it to include more than just Shylock. I am noting here that in quoting Hazlitt, I had to use the edition I had on hand. We might want to regularize the citations from the book to one of the editions. I've no objection to seeing them all changed to the 1906 edition, but I couldn't do that, as I do not have that one. --Alan W (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I relied on the 1906 edition because it should be available on google books for everyone. Here is the link. One of the beautiful things is that the edition qualifies to be transferred over to Wikisource, so there could be links added later (in a manner similar to those found on Prometheus Unbound (Shelley) in the notes section) to connect directly to the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd. In fact it did occur to me that you might have found it on Google Books, and I searched for it myself but somehow could not find that edition there. To try to understand where I might have gone wrong, I just tried again with the Advanced Search options of Author "William Hazlitt" and Subject "Shakespeare" (I also tried "Shakespear", though as subject the modern spelling surely would have been used) and came up with no matches at all! My original attempts included a broader search under just Hazlitt (I think I then tried adding a few possible words or phrases afterwards) and that came up with a bunch of books, including a few editions of Characters, but not the 1906 edition. It may just be that their advanced-search functions need some improvements. Well, whatever the case, I have it now—thanks for the link—and what you say about conforming to the 1906 edition sounds reasonable to me. I will soon make revisions accordingly, and then get on to the other changes I mentioned I would do. --Alan W (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the citations to refer to the 1906 edition, if only for the sake of consistency. Now that I have looked at this Google Books reproduction, however, I see there is a problem. I do not see that book as a candidate for Wikisource, as it is a very bad reproduction, with much of the text cut off! See, e.g., p. 210. I'm wondering now if we should switch to the 1818 edition. It looks much, much better to me. --Alan W (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An 1818 edition may be better. I normally avoid those unless it is an authoritative edition (which is hard to find via google). That appears to be the authoritative manner. Every once in a while, you end up with a bad Irish pirated copy. There was a problem with The Covent-Garden Journal, as the Irish had alterations and had different numbering/dating. Good job at finding a strong early edition. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell, the 1818 edition is reasonably reliable. And the Google reproduction looks quite clean (the 1906, as you may have seen, is really defective). It will be a fairly tedious job changing all the references, so I won't do it right away, but we should certainly do it before this is put up for FA consideration. For now, I am planning out more changes along the lines we've discussed elsewhere on this talk page (including the addition of something on Falstaff). --Alan W (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started to cite the 1818 edition now. I am unable to use the 1906 one further, as it blew up my Adobe Acrobat program; it's more than just defective, that file must be totally corrupt. Eventually, I will change all the references to the 1818 edition to be consistent. The 1818 one is in excellent shape, too, and since it is not easy to find this book in a paper edition these days, it's good to know that a photographic copy in such readable shape can be accessed on the Internet. --Alan W (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it easy to search through googlebooks by typing in a phrase or a small passage in the search area on the left hand of the document and surrounding the terms it with quotes. It tends to do a good job at finding the passages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can try that. It never hurts to know what works for others. But I always download my own local PDF copy, which is easier to access, and then I can search that. That has always worked for me, except in this one case, where something is corrupted in the document. Well, I am not going to worry about that now, as I will eventually convert all the references to point to the 1818 edition if nobody else does. That looks really neat and clean, and, as we have said, happens to be a good, reliable edition. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Othello

Another case where it's mostly fine. Just a few things need to be tweaked, I think. For example, you start by saying, "The Othello essay is written with the intent to allow the audience to identify with the character Othello." Well, in part, but I think he also wants the audience to identify with other characters. Again, "Hazlitt refused to connect the characters within the plays to Shakespeare as a poet." In some sense that is true, but he does make the connection in pointing out what Keats would later call Shakespeare's "negative capability" (and Keats was greatly influenced by Hazlitt's thinking about this kind of thing, as you probably know). Something about Shakespeare's ability to put himself into the minds of others better than any other poet comes up a number of times in Hazlitt's writing. This is still connecting the poet to his characters in some way. Kinnaird or Bromwich or both say something about Hazlitt's pointing to great poets' (especially Shakespeare's) abilities to connect the reader's imagination with that of the poet himself by means of imaginatively embodied characters—something like that (it's very late here, and this is from memory). Not saying any of what I am remembering vaguely here should be used in any detail or even specifically, but I am just suggesting a direction to take in making some revisions. Again, I will do it after a while if no one else does first. --Alan W (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of that section is choppy and should be rewritten. If you want to have a go, feel free. As for the Keats part - I was wondering if Negative Capability should be mentioned. Unfortunately, it is looking forward, which would be problematic. However, it could be okay if we break it down and say something like Keats later clarified the idea and titled it "negative capability" or something to that effect. Anyway, I understand exactly what you mean. If you have a proposal for a reword feel free. My brain is unable to come up with a good way to phrase it right now (too many reviews at GAN and FAC to think about one of the most complex poetic concepts). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, just suggesting a general direction; no absolute need to use the actual term "negative capability". But we'll see. Right now, while you and Xover, as your GA reviewer, are looking at specific sentences and so on, I'm still trying to absorb the article in a more general way and set down further suggestions as I've been doing. --Alan W (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There could be a section on influence - ramifications of various ideas and concepts. There can easily be three or four paragraphs built on the various influences with a paragraph devoted to Keats's use of Hazlitt in the idea of "negative capability" (as the concept did shape literary criticism from the 1960s onward with Bate's analysis). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling now that anything about Keats and negative capability, while we shouldn't rule it out, should remain for now on a back burner. As you mentioned earlier, it's a somewhat complicated topic, and, also, we don't want to go off on a tangent. The most important thing now is to convey what is significant about this particular book. And I'm still mulling over all of that, even reading more to get some background, to the extent that I can. --Alan W (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering...

As usual, Ottava, you're working like a house afire, now that this is up for GA. :-) I noticed that in Background, you changed "pirated" to "unlicensed". Why? "Pirated" is the stronger word, it is perfectly correct here and in common English usage, and, more to the point in this context, that is exactly the way Duncan Wu, your source, says it: "It went to a second edition in 1818, and later that year was pirated by Wells and Lilly in Boston...." (p. 212). --Alan W (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone was going around literature articles and changing pirated to unlicensed and then attacking the creators of the page for using the term. That person was doing that at multiple GAs. I wanted to preempt that individual so that he does not "destabilize" the page via a edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I understand. Well, I guess I can live with "unlicensed" for now. We have bigger fish to fry, or some such appropriate expression. :^) --Alan W (talk)

Others

The one glaring omission that occurs to me as I read this section is the complete absence of the character of Falstaff. Neither of the Henry IV plays nor The Merry Wives of Windsor is so much as mentioned here, and they are most remarkable, to Hazlitt at least, as containing the character of Falstaff. Kinnaird calls his "six-page sketch of Falstaff" a "masterpiece". Falstaff is barely mentioned in another context in the section "Themes", and even then only in a direct quote of Hazlitt's text, but not here. Maybe there should even be a separate section on the plays he appears in. --Alan W (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find enough information to really go into Falstaff. If you think that you can put together two or three paragraphs on him, please feel free. I agree that he and others should be mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. It's on my to-do list, along with reorganizing the Othello section (though I haven't looked at it today, and I see that you have been furiously working at making modifications for GA purposes, so I don't know what it looks like now—actually, it now seems that you have not touched that section in a while). Just be aware that (I say this in view not only of what I've directly responded to, but after noticing talk about FA nomination) I do not seem to have nearly as much time to spare for this as you and Xover do. I am enthusiastic about contributing to make this the best article possible, but, as the old expression goes, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I am very busy with work, and in addition have numerous personal matters to attend to in my life these days. This is a welcome respite from the turmoil, but, still, the fact remains that I have only so much time to spare. --Alan W (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Five minutes here or there, casual glances, or anything really is more than enough. Don't feel too obligated. Plus, you have already aided quite a bit so you will be involved in the whole process by default. There is no time constraint for this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Themes

A lot of good stuff in here. But I think there is a bit too much, and it is somewhat repetitive and could be boiled down and here and there modified somewhat. Kinnaird and Bromwich's ideas about this book, as about Hazlitt's thought in general, are very subtle, and I'm still trying to grasp much of what they say. Maybe I can make a few changes once I do, to the extent I can. --Alan W (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical response

Something of a jolt to see the only illustration a picture of William Gifford, Hazlitt's arch-nemesis! You say that the book was well received. Yet of contemporary reviews you mention only those that panned the book. My immediate thought is that something of Francis Jeffrey's review should be mentioned too, and it would be good if a picture of Jeffrey could be found to counterbalance that of Gifford. At least Jeffrey was one of those (and he was an extremely powerful and influential critic) who liked the book.

Also, it's quite a leap from those contemporary reviews to Herschel Baker, a hundred forty-five years later. I'll think about smoothing out that gap. A lot of what you do include, though, is very good.

One more general thing I'm trying to figure out how to deal with is a pair of partly opposing facts: while Hazlitt agreed with Lamb that one gets the most out of Shakespeare's plays by reading them, not seeing them, still, the fact remains that Hazlitt loved the theatre and thought highly of specific actors' interpretations of some of the characters, such as Kean's of Shylock and Sarah Siddons as Lady Macbeth; and there are others. Hazlitt, really, was very broad minded and got what he could out of both ways of experiencing Shakespeare's plays. Lamb, for all the delights of his own writing about Shakespeare, was, I think, a little more one-sided in this respect. This doesn't always come through; Hazlitt does not always really simply agree with Lamb. Keeping all this in mind and maybe using those thoughts to make a few modifications of some sentences here and there is another thing I would like to do.

In short, I'm still hanging in there. You may not see a constant stream of changes from me, but rest assured I am continuing to work on this in one way or another. --Alan W (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add Jeffrey's review for some reason. It will probably take a while to find reviews spanning each generation (if it is possible - it is hard to find reviews between 1860 and 1890 on most works). And feel free to make any changes that will blunt the Lamb closet play idea. I will see what I can find on later 19th-century reviews. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Provided I'm not mixing my Jefferys, commons has the below pictures of him. The first of which would make an excellent and subtle contrast with the Giffort painting (light vs. dark, positive vs. negative review). --Xover (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice and light, and contrasting nicely with Gifford

Dark and a bit drab, but in the same style as Gifford

Well, I see the article made GA status already! Congratulations to us, but mostly to you, Ottava, for laying down a very complete foundation and then working very hard to polish it up. Of course we should not rest on our laurels. As it is understood that my time is limited, my additions/changes won't be huge or quick, but I am working on some things. Somewhere I think I said I would reorganize the Othello essay but I meant The Merchant of Venice, which we agreed needed reorganizing. Then I can concentrate on the other things, including balancing the closet-play side of Hazlitt with his love-of-theatre side, and adding something about Jeffrey's review if you don't get to it first, Ottava, at which time one of those pictures can be added too. Yes, Xover, this is the right Jeffrey; he was a lawyer and judge of some kind and later became Lord Jeffrey. For many years he was also the editor of the Edinburgh Review, and he wrote a good deal of it too. Good job finding the illustrations! Whichever one we choose should be just the thing here. --Alan W (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hunt down a copy of a collection of reviews on Hazlitt (they are hard to find and expensive, so many libraries don't bother). It would be easier to get a loan copy so I could have it for checking (the LoC has one but reading time is limited). If you can find one faster than I can, that would help - Hazlitt: The Critical Heritage. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Falstaff

@ManKnowsInfinity:, I don't see how what you added is relevant here. Hazlitt's point is not that Falstaff is more memorable than Prince Hal. Prince Hal is not a comic character. Hazlitt was talking about comic characters, and Falstaff was "perhaps the most substantial" of them in any literary work according to Hazlitt. That Falstaff is named but does not appear in Henry V is totally beside the point here, since Hazlitt doesn't say it. All this kind of thing might be fine in the articles on the plays themselves or on Falstaff the character. This article is only about what Hazlitt said about him. --Alan W (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alan W; Actually, my response was more based on the new book on Falstaff which just came out on April 4th which makes strong endorsement of Hazlitt's reading of this character in Shakespeare. The emphasis in the new book just out is not on the comedy aspect of Falstaff but Hazlitt's appreciation of the character portrayal as one which recognizes Falstaff as gregarious and filled with an exuberance for life. It is this aspect which I felt notable coming from a new book length study of the character which is strongly aligned with Hazlitt's reading. The book is from Scribner's and is titled Give Me Life well worth including in the article here as a reliable source. Adapt the edit as you see best and my understanding is that in general editors at Wikipedia are usually mindful of reliable sources when they are available for citation and reference purposes. Your own edit field comment to me using the phrase "however true it may be in itself", seems to recognize the importance of having a cited source. Use the wording you feel best represents this, though the new source which is sympathetic to Hazlitt's reading ought to be recognized in this section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, ManKnowsInfinity. Nice to hear that such a book is out and Hazlitt's comments on Falstaff are viewed favorably. Eventually I would like to read this book but I don't have access to it now. You could add something quoted from it in what you feel is an appropriate place, so that we'll have the citation with page number. Then I will make further editorial adjustments as I see fit. Hmm, I'm thinking that you don't have the book in front of you either. I say that because I just looked it up and see it's from Simon & Schuster, not Scribner's, so this is all from memory of something you saw. This may have to wait until one of us has the book in hand. I am also interested to see that the author is Harold Bloom. He is already mentioned in this article (see the last section), and I'm not surprised he views Hazlitt's criticism favorably: Bloom considers Hazlitt to be one of the greatest literary critics who ever wrote in English. Regards, Alan W (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just found what we need in a Google Books preview, enough for our purposes here. We were both right. It is published by Scribner, which is what you must have seen, but Scribner is an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Eventually I'll want to read the whole thing, but a small extract will do for our purposes here. Thanks for tipping me off to this new book. --Alan W (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Its well worth the reading and at under 200 pages its something that could be done over a long week-end. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the extra text you added. But I felt I had to revert it. It only says what Bloom thinks about Falstaff. This article is only about Hazlitt's appreciation of Falstaff. I did find a quote in Bloom's book that supports Hazlitt's view, so I included that last night. That is all that is appropriate here, since it is Bloom highlighting Hazlitt's appreciative account of Falstaff. Why don't you add something from Bloom's book to the article on the character of Falstaff? That is where it would be appropriate. --Alan W (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, I just looked over the Falstaff article. It could use a section with what literary critics over the years have thought of Falstaff. Bloom is not the first to have devoted a whole book to Falstaff. But we have to start somewhere, so what you singled out from Bloom's book could be a good beginning in summarizing critical opinions of Shakespeare's Falstaff as a literary character. For that matter, something about Hazlitt's account of Falstaff could be in there as well. --Alan W (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Both of your points are worth a follow-up and perhaps you'll be able to add the supplements which you mention here. On your second point of the short version of the history of Falstaff interpretation, this often starts by recounting Johnson's moralism concerning the depiction of this character by Shakespeare and criticism of Falstaff as a ribald personality. This was then answered by Hazlitt's strong counter-reading adding clarity to why Falstaff was such a hit on stage with audiences and defending Falstaff's gregarious and exuberant qualities. Bradley was then later fully convinced by Hazlitt, which remains for the most part the received opinion to this day. Regarding your second point as to the short edit I added yesterday, my thought was that there is some importance to attach to Hazlitt's comparison of Falstaff to Prince Hal, and Hazlitt finding significant commendations of the portrayal of Falstaff over and above Shakespeare's more limited depictions of Prince Hal. The other way to assert this is to use the new book Give Me Life to show that Falstaff is numbered with Hamlet, Iago, Cleopatra and Lear among Shakespeare's canonical characters in agreement with Hazlitt and significantly excluding Prince Hal from this list of canonical characters. At this point, this is really for you to assess as to what adjustments you may feel are best for readers of the article based on the above discussion. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know when I would get the chance to add the supplement to the Falstaff article. You are better qualified to do that at this time. You appear to own Bloom's book, or at least you read it (again, I hope to, eventually). If you want to begin an addition to that article, I will be glad to go in and provide editorial assistance, as needed. As for your point about Hazlitt's comparison of Prince Hal and Falstaff, well, I just looked back at what Hazlitt wrote. That just enforces my belief that we should not add anything more to this article along the lines of what you suggest. What Hazlitt means when he says, "Falstaff is the better man of the two" can easily be misinterpreted out of context. He is being a bit ironic, perhaps. He is also speaking of the characters as he would feel about them if encountered in real life. (I wouldn't add anything along these lines either, as it would be what Wikipedia considers "original research".)

Hazlitt also makes it very clear that there is, within the play, no real comparison of the two (in the sense of which is "better" from a literary standpoint). They are just very different kinds of characters. Each in his own class is superbly portrayed. Hazlitt also says, "The characters of Hotspur and Prince Henry are two of the most beautiful and dramatic, both in themselves and from contrast, that ever were drawn." But to go on further about what Bloom says about Falstaff, apart from what he says about what Hazlitt says about Falstaff, let alone Prince Hal, is to go too far afield. Again, this article is about Hazlitt's thoughts about the characters in Shakespeare's plays, including, in this section, about Falstaff. It is not about critics' views of Falstaff in general, and that includes Bloom's views. And when you get into Bloom's thoughts about Prince Hal vs. Falstaff, that is getting way off topic for this article. That is why I suggest adding something from Bloom's book to the Falstaff article. That is really the only place it would be appropriate (unless you add a section about this book to the article on Bloom himself). --Alan W (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alan W: After reading your comments, I did take the time to re-read the Hazlitt essay and it is Hazlitt who states at the start of his analysis of the play: "If Shakespeare's fondness for the ludicrous sometimes led to faults in his tragedies (which was not often the case), he has made us amends by the character of Falstaff." From the very start, Hazlitt identifies Falstaff as the center of attention in this Shakespeare play and sustains this thought throughout the essay to its very end. It ends with Hazlitt's words at the conclusion of this essay: "The truth is, that we never could forgive the Prince's treatment of Falstaff; though perhaps Shakespeare knew what was best, according to the history, the nature of the times, and of the man. We speak only as dramatic critics. Whatever terror the French in those days might have of Henry V, yet to the readers of poetry at present, Falstaff is the better man of the two. We think of him and quote him oftener." Prince Hal or Henry V never make it to Hazlitt's list of canonical characters in Shakespeare, though Falstaff certainly does, which ought to be reflected in the article. Its really up to you at this point as a top editor of this page as to the best form of this for an edit here, this is not original research, it is Hazlitt's own opinion in his own words. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: I appreciate your taking the time to reread what Hazlitt had to say for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, his essay shows immense appreciation of Falstaff as a character, as you say. I still think what is already there in this treatment of Hazlitt's thoughts about Falstaff is enough, and conveys the balance and tone of the original. As I have already said, Hazlitt's comment about Falstaff being "the better man" is an instance of his stepping out of his critic's role and offering a personal impression. This tendency is mentioned at the beginning of the article, and it has been noted by secondary sources. But he does not say that Falstaff is greater than Prince Hal as a literary character. He says that Falstaff is perhaps the greatest of all comic characters, and that Prince Hal (along with Hotspur) is great in his own way, as a character in a play. Maybe one could infer that because Falstaff is the greatest comic character, he is "more memorable" than Prince Hal. But Hazlitt nowhere really says that. As always, ManKnowsInfinity, you have spurred me on to further thinking, and that is a good thing. (E.g., you helped me realize that Hazlitt's "infatuation" for Sarah Walker was more than just that, it was a full-blown "obsession".) In this case, after doing the thinking, and rereading the essay as you did, and after having spent years reading and thinking about Hazlitt, I still feel strongly that this particular essay is best left as is. (I did add, after you pointed it out to me, something about Bloom's appreciation of Hazlitt's appreciation of Falstaff; that small addition does help.) Regards, Alan W (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to add that we both have to step back and realize that Hazlitt was not the first critic to recognize the greatness of Falstaff as a literary character. (One Maurice Morgann wrote a whole book about Falstaff, published before Hazlitt was even born.) Because of the attention Falstaff was already receiving, probably most would already have felt instinctively that there was something more memorable about Falstaff than most other characters. So even if Hazlitt had said that Falstaff is more memorable than Prince Hal (and he never explicitly says that; his emphasis is that Falstaff is the most memorable comic character), there would have been nothing particularly original in that observation. And no secondary source indicates that Hazlitt said that; so, again, no additions along those lines to this article are warranted. --Alan W (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hazlitt reference checks please

The word "developement" is contained within many Hazlitt quotes in the article. One I was able to correct as it wasn't within a quote. Its existence leads me to believe that this might not be the spelling of "development" in Hazlitt. It needs checking for correction or [sic].--Brenont (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brenont: Pretty sure "developement" is correct, including in the two instances you altered. You can check with a quick search on the Google Books scan linked from "External links", and the whole book is transcribed on Wikisource: Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. --Xover (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, Brenont; however, Xover is right. The spelling "developement" is correct. I believe I was the one who provided that citation originally, and I just checked again in my digitized version of the original 1818 edition. Although English spelling in Hazlitt's day is recognizable as "modern" in many respects compared to that of, say a century earlier, still, some spellings that were still then current would be considered "archaic" now. The spelling of "development" as "developement" is one such case. And, per MOS:QUOTATIONS, spelling within quoted material should be left intact: "Archaic spellings (including capitalization, punctuation, and emphasis that would be non-standard today) are retained in quotations". Furthermore, "sic" would be used only in cases where the original author made a mistake; but this spelling was correct in 1818. See also MOS:SIC. So please don't take it personally, Brenont, when I revert your changes. By the way, please look again: all three instances of "developement" are within quoted material. --Alan W (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, and perhaps this has led to confusion. I don't know what edition the Wikisource Characters of Shakespeare's Plays is from, but it has the spelling as "development". Someone modernized it somewhere along the way. I did, however, check the spelling in the original 1818 edition, and there it is "developement", as it is in the authoritative Howe edition of 1930. --Alan W (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet another thing. @Brenont: I see you changed the "–2" to "–02" in a range of pages in a citation. But the first way just follows the citation style already used throughout the article. Any of a number of different ways of formatting citations is permitted on Wikipedia. But the important thing here is to follow the style already used, for the sake of consistency. Per WP:CITEVAR:

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

and so on. --Alan W (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Woops. Mea culpa. I failed to check the Wikisource transcript properly before I linked it, as I've usually found the WS transcripts to be very high quality: their policy is that transcripts should be backed by a scan, and that two people should check the transcription before it is published. In this case however, the transcript is simply imported from Project Gutenberg; and Gutenberg has really terrible quality control and almost never give any information about which edition was transcribed. In other words, the particular transcript I linked is not at all to be trusted. It still serves as a convenience link and an easy way to access the work, but not for any particular detail of spelling or similar. --Xover (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least this discussion helped clarify a point about English spelling two hundred years ago, as well as the reliability of certain digital sources. Yes, Xover, you have confirmed my impression of Project Gutenberg. A noble project, but often the texts are filled with errors (due to flawed, uncorrected optical character recognition) or are otherwise unreliable. I agree with the other things you say about it as well. --Alan W (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)