# Talk:The Plays of William Shakespeare

Is it "Miscellaneous Observations" or "Miscellanious Observations"?  The article uses both spellings without any rationale that I can see.  If there are different texts of the essay with different spellings on the title pages, I think the article should make this clear. Lexo (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go with what the image says - eous. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have done a lot of small stylistic changes to this article, just fixing passive constructions and clarifying anything that seemed obscure.  Only one line I can't figure out: "Garrick, Johnson's friend and Shakespeare actor, offered Johnson the ability to rely on his collection of plays, but Johnson could not bring himself to trust Garrick's intentions behind the offer."  I don't know what "the ability to rely on" might mean here; did Garrick offer to lend Johnson his collection, or didn't he? I don't know, and I hope the author can make it clearer.  Thanks. Lexo (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson thought that if he used Garrick's copy, then Garrick/Shakespearean actors would expect some kind of promotion, or their version of Shakespeare being relied on. There was somewhat of a feud between the scholars and the actors. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it perhaps make sense to say that Garrick offered Johnson access to his collection of plays (he had quite a few early Quarto editions as I recall), but that Johnson mistrusted the offer—for the reasons Ottava gives above—and didn't avail himself of it. As I recall, he didn't offer to lend Johnson the plays, just to study them (presumably at Garrick's home, or wherever he kept them). --Xover (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That triggered a memory - Johnson wanted Garrick to send the books over to his house, but Garrick said that Johnson would have to study them at his house. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a solution, based on Xover's use of the crucial word "access": "David Garrick offered Johnson access to his collection of Shakespeare texts, but Johnson believed that Garrick would expect preferential treatment from Johnson in return, and in the interests of scholarly objectivity he declined the offer." Lexo (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) From Martin, Peter (2005). Edmond Malone, Shakespearean Scholar: a literary biography. Cambridge University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0-521-61982-3.:

… Malone remarked to Charlemont on 5 April 1779 that while the ‘critical parts’ of the Lives were ‘amusing and instructive’, the biographical sections were flawed by ‘a want of industry’:

He hates much trouble. A man of infinitely inferior parts (Horace Walpole, for instance) would have collected a great many anecdotes, and made a more entertaining work. Johnson complains in his preface to Shakespeare that he did not find the posessors of the old quartos very communicative of them. Yet every one knew that Garrick allowed every person that asked it to have access to his valuable collection; and nothing would have displeased Johnson so much as to have had a cart-load of them laid down in his study.

Just in case you'll find it useful here. I could have sworn Martin had more to say on this subject, but a quick scan didn't turn up more than the above. --Xover (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a better source (the one cited in the text already):
"From Garrick's valuable collection alone, he could have acquired a good deal of help if he had been willing to stomach his pride. Garrick assured him he was welcome to use the collection at any time. He left the key to it with a servant, 'with orders to have a fire and every convenience for him.' Johnson disregarded the offer, considering it affected and presumptuous on the part of a player to be so possessive about Shakespeare. Garrick, by seeking to make him come there to work, was expecting Johnson to 'court' him. This Johnson would not do. If Garrick had really wanted to help, he would have bundled up and sent him 'the plays of his own accord.' Johnson was to remain troubled in conscience about this neglect, even though, in a way quite at odds with his original Proposals, he could slip into a defensive dismissal of its importance."
Walter Jackson Bate. Quite contradicts Martin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Martin here just quotes Malone, and that Malone was writing privately to Charlemont (and the quoted bit is a brief excerpt of the full letter). Malone was a great admirer of Johnson—as Martin takes pains to stress—so I don't think we should take the above to be Malone's general opinion of Johnson's Plays. I suspect he's not commenting upon the Plays so much as on Johnson's general distaste for the boring grunt work for which Malone himself had such an aptitude. --Xover (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean ref vs ref. A biography on the subject is better than second hand speculation. Anyway, Malone and Bate are talking about the edition (i.e. the actual plays) and not about the notes or commentary. Other editions that followed Johnson came up with better versions, and editors are still trying to piece together the originals. Malone appreciated Johnson's notes, but I think most felt that Johnson merely took the first step to have a good edition, and was nothing that could be considered complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Initial review
Seems to meet all the criteria,  more to follow ... FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


### Full review
Im passing this article. Just made two changes and have three minor suggestions.
I changed the caption from "Johnson reading"  to "Samuel Johnson , one of the editors."  - if we want to keep close to  the original  caption it would be good to say what hes actually reading.  Possibly we could use the caption to say Johnson was the principle editor if its agreed that is correct  (as I understand the restriction on OR is not so strongly enforced for images?).
"Although Steevens provided most of the textual work, Johnson contributed an additional eighty notes"
I removed the word although from the above sentence as its generally used to indicate a surprising relationship between two facts, when from reading the rest of the section it doesnt seem unexpected that in a partnership Johnson would contribute notes while the other editor would focus on corrections.  
If theres an intention to progress the article to FA status  it would be nice is the below extract could be re-written ,  not having ready access to the sources I didnt want to change it, but it doesnt seem in the best encyclopedic style. 

Throughout the article, it might look better  to use cquote  as I have above  instead of regular block quotes for the quotations.  
If its possible some additional web links would be good.  Otherwise, a most excellent article!