![]() | The Country Wife is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
This caption, while hilarious, is probably not appropriate for this page. Vircum 08:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Should the article have one? — Ashley Y 23:07, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
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. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The Country Wife was recently performed in London[ [3]]. 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)
Needs a lot of work, is anyone watching this page anymore? Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | The Country Wife is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
This caption, while hilarious, is probably not appropriate for this page. Vircum 08:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Should the article have one? — Ashley Y 23:07, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
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. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The Country Wife was recently performed in London[ [3]]. 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)
Needs a lot of work, is anyone watching this page anymore? Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)