Talk:Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage

Excellent article. I really think it states the case concisely and powerfully. There are a raft of other "replies" and "responses," but none of them matter much. I'm glad to see a clear-eyed statement of the case and a refutation of the scholastic chestnut that Collier killed the stage. I think that death killed the stage: the death of Charles II. If that hadn't done it, William and Mary would have. William was dour, not good with English, and more interested in cannon balls, it seems. Then came Anna Gloriosa, the woman described as "blankly stupid when in a good mood and sulkily stupid when in a foul mood." Before the stage was a market economy, the patron called the tune. When the patron finally became the general public...well...best not to think of it. :-) Great article. Geogre 01:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks, Geogre, you are the soul of politeness always. :-) I just went and put Williamanmary in there, because you're right, encouragement or lack of it from Court was tremendously important. I seem to remember that the Royal pair had some kind of involvement with the Society For the Reformation of Manners, too. Maybe not, and enough with the research, anyway, this article is getting overlong for the importance of the subject as it is. I'll just go change the Jeremy Collier entry now, where the original contributor claims Collier was a bishop. That can't be right. He was a non-juror, i.e. barely a clergyman at all, and infamous for some piece of aggressiveness towards William — having given absolution to would-be assassins of him, I think it was. I'll check up on the bishop thing just to be sure, though.--Bishonen 13:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ok, well, actually, it turns out Collier was/became "bishop of the nonjurors". I'd no idea there was such a thing. It can't be a lot like a regular bishop, I guess. Anyway, that'll save me changing anything, good. (I wish I was more interested in Church history, with it being so important in late 17th—early 18th c, but I'm just not.)--Bishonen 14:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Bishop of the non-jurors" has to be a tag. It can't be real. I think Bill and Mary had an involvement, too. Where did I read it, though? Shoot. I know there's a place, and I know you're right. Ah, well. Geogre 14:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the reference, the play ahem, pamphlet is named "A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage". Why is the "A" dropped elsewhere in the article, and in the title? Dbenbenn 01:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(It's not a play, Collier would have a fit if he could hear you.) Hi, Dbenbenn, have you been lurking on the German Wikipedia, or is this a huge coincidence? Please see my post today on the talk page of the user who translated this article into German (my second post under the same heading, scroll down), where I address your concern. The pamphlet is well known and frequently referenced under both names, with and without the A, it's even frequently reprinted under both names. If anybody can face checking out whether the Library of Congress has a first edition (as I mention on de.wiki, I've tried the British Library unsuccessfully), perhaps we should go with the title of that. But I don't see it as a problem, as such, that the reference prefers one title and I prefer another, since both titles are well-established in academic usage.--Bishonen | Talk 02:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the answer. Actually, it is a coincidence; I was spying your contributions list, and noticed this article.

Again with the KGB methods!

I went to the Library of Congress a few summers ago, and managed to see precisely one book. They don't just let people waltz in off the street and look at books, alas. Dbenbenn 02:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I meant the web catalogue, one would have to assume it would have a proper bibliographic citation with the title copied exactly from the title page. I'm not very good friends with the LC site...well, I can manage it, but mainly, I have no strong feelings about the title used, just so as long as there are redirects from all reasonable forms and spellings.--Bishonen | Talk 02:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LoC has 6 versions, 5 or 6 of which start with "A". See [1] Of course, they also use "library title casing", with only "English" capitalized. I guess I don't care that much either. dbenbenn | talk 22:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First Edition Short View Found

Hi Bishonen (I'm assuming from the posts that you are the one who started this page). My sister and I were cleaning out a really old bookcase in my parents home. This house has been in our family for generations, and the contents in the very top of this over-seven-feet-tall bookcase hadn't been touched in a century or more.

Surprise, there was a first edition copy of Short View. Even more surprising, the book is still in fairly good condition (cover still attached, etc.). There is what appears to be a signature on the title page. I have spent a long time looking at it, trying to figure out if it is Collier's signature. The signature does end in "y". (Does anyone have an example of Collier's signature?)

The story behind the book is that it had first belonged to one of my ancestors who lived in England. Then, about 150 years later, it was sent by one of that person's descendants to another ancestor of mine who lived in America.

I took some photos of the book, and have posted them in Wikipedia Commons. I created a sandbox page with the photos on it, so that you can take a look at them and see if you might like me to add them to the Short View page. The sandbox page is here. (Are we able to see each other's sandboxes?) I have the photos set up in table format, because I really detest Wiki's gallery tag (very little user control over how it displays).

For the record, even the first edition title does start with "A" (A Short View...), but maybe just changing the bold print at the very start of the article would do the trick.

What is really interesting to me is how much Old English and German had in common. (I had a minor in German literature.) I had never realized that Old English used the 'ß' character to represent a double-s , just like German, or that Old English capitalized all of the nouns, just like the German (still) does. I knew that English came from low German, but never knew this about Old English!

I would love to read this book, but am afraid of touching it too much, or even opening it too much. (Maybe I should read a modern copy instead.)

Along those same lines, I am wondering what to do with it. I could continue to keep it in my personal library (which is nice and dark and dry, fortunately). But I am scared to death that something will happen to it, so I have considered donating it to my local university. The library there has a rare books and manuscripts section that is inside a steel caged area, and you have to sign in to use it, wear cotton gloves, etc. It would be safer there probably. What are your thoughts on that?

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Quick note: the binding would be from after the fact, probably, or at least the work of the bookseller rather than of the printer. Also, as you've no doubt gathered, Collier revised and republished the work. The fact that it's a "book" rather than a pamphlet suggests that you're looking at one of the later versions (the original was a pamphlet). The paper should be solid. I myself worked extensively with a 1689 book for my dissertation, and it was as clear and sound as if it were bought new yesterday. This is because the paper they used was acid free. However, if you handle it, wear cotton gloves, if you can. This will keep oils from your fingers turning acidic on the paper. To hold the pages open to read, use a bean bag or some other cloth covered book weight (the leather blackjack looking things sold by Barnes & Noble are acceptable, but not optimal). Be very careful of the binding any any marginalia, of course, because, unlike the paper and printing, those are susceptible to time. Back with more later. Geogre (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a search on Google, and came up with a catalog of books by English authors who lived before the year 1700. The "first edition" is described as being "mettled calf". I assume this refers to the cover, because the pages themselves were not printed on leather. Also, when you compare the publication information on my copy with what it says in the catalog, the text matches exactly (for example, it does not say "in Holborn", as does the second edition).

Also, the university library's rare books section looked this up in their computer, and indicated to me that this was bound. I am not saying that there were no unbound copies sold. There were likely both.

I am convinced that this is, indeed a first edition. I have added photos to my sandbox area showing the book's cover and its binder. These have been added at the bottom.

So, we should put some of these photos up on the page. shouldn't we? Which one(s) would be best? The three in the first horizontal row, when stacked, show the title page: top, center and bottom (where the pub. date is).

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A postnote to the above: See the notes in the catalogue referenced above about the collation of the first edition. I checked the book against this. On page A5 of the preface, there appears to be a misprint of the year. It says 169 and then after the 9 shows a 7 and an 8 stacked vertically. It is so strange looking that I had to examine it with a flashlight to make sure. It is definitely printed in the book, and not something that anyone has written in.

The book has the same sections, in the same order, including the page of Errata and Advertisements. (See the advertisement by William Congreve for free tickets to Love for Love for all clergy. Just show ID at the gate. Kidding.) The book does go through T288. There are just so many features of this book that match the first edition description.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me. I was only saying that there are many first editions. It's a common enough game, especially among the sensationalist and controversialist writers, to rewrite their books every so often, and so there can be a first edition of this version, a first edition of that version, etc. A true first edition would be moderately valuable, given the importance of the book. I used to own a 3rd ed. of A Tale of a Tub, complete with errors. Again, any marginalia you find in the book could be useful in determining provenance and, if the provenance is right, adding to what we know.

In a way, it's not at all surprising that a first edition would show up in America, given the population of the early settlement of the US, and esp. in the northeast and mid-Atlantic. These would be Collier's peeps, as it were. Farther south, and it would be more surprising (all those Cavalier planters with dissenting workers). Geogre (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)