Talk:Philostrate

Philostrate has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 2, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the character of Philostrate, the Master of Revels in William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, may have been created as a way to poke fun at play censorship?

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Introduction[edit]

"Shakespeare may have used this character to poke fun at Edmund Tilney, the Master of Revels in London at the time. In early performances of the play, the actor who played his character probably also played the part of Egeus, causing textual confusion in one scene in Act five where both characters are present."

I wonder, while I have no problem with this information in the body of the article, is it really appropriate to put details of such a speculative nature right up there in the introduction? Calgary 05:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could just say that he was poking fun at play censorship in general at the time. That isn't much of a stretch at all to most scholars. The double-role info is anything but speculative. All scholars believe this, as far as I've seen. Wrad 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to copy over the last sentence. Calgary 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the GA reviewer[edit]

This article is pretty short, but after scouring several books and scholarly articles, I'm confident that it covers all major issues (as well as a few more minor ones). Wrad 06:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the GA reviewer[edit]

Hello! Another nice article on a minor Shakespearean character! There are just a few small things that I think would improve this article and give it that extra patina of professionalism.

Could we add an image? If there are no images of Philostrate, at least Shakespeare?
- I'm developing a plan for this. I'm trying to get my hands on a MND video (and Tempest, as well), in order to get some screenshots. Bear with me. Wrad 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bearing. Awadewit | talk 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The date of MND needs to be mentioned in the lead so that reader knows what time period they are dealing with.~~
- Added. Wrad 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In early performances of the play, the actor who played this character probably also played the part of Egeus, causing textual confusion in one scene in Act V where both characters are present. - This does not quite explain enough, in my opinion. Who is Egeus the reader wonders? What was the confusion and why is it textual?
- Tried to explain better. Wrad 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't understand - what does "filled both roles" mean? He spoke all the lines? Some lines were deleted? It is just a little vague. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did some real digging and clarified this a lot. Wrad 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The second explanation is better, but the lead is still vague. Awadewit | talk 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Role in the play" section, you mention Theseus in betrothed. Why not expand that a bit and mention that he is picking a play for his wedding celebration or whatever it is. Contextualize the whole scene a bit more, in other words.
- Added more context. Wrad 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The "Context" section begins rather abruptly, don't you think?~~
- Fixed by adding a more general sentence to the beginning. Wrad 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you mean the names are borrowed or that the Canterbury Tales are the sources for more than that? It's a bit unclear. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clarified. Wrad 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much clearer, but now it is abrupt again! (You must really hate me.) Awadewit | talk 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So much better! Awadewit | talk 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other candidates include Philostratus, the author of Comus, a play which has been compared to Shakespeare's. - Other candidates for what exactly?
- Made clearer. Wrad 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The "master of revels" paragraph has some repetition in it and could be explained in a slightly more linear manner, I feel. Perhaps by introducing the characters first?~~
- Reorganized paragraph. Wrad 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think this can be improved. Try imagining yourself as someone who knows a little about the play and nothing about the "master of the revels". (Hard to do, I know.) Awadewit | talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clarified. Wrad 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still think this needs some work. Let it stew for a few days. Come back to it. You want tightly organized paragraphs that lead the reader through the information. You always want them to know why they are being the given the information - I think this paragraph starts to drift a little bit. Awadewit | talk 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, so much better! Awadewit | talk 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kernan calls it "junk theatre". - Who is Kernan? Give the reader a reason to trust Kernan's opinion.
- Fixed. Wrad 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first time you mention someone in an essay, encyclopedia entry, etc. you give their first and last name. Subsequently, you only use their last name. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Wrad 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furness interprets this a little differently, saying that Shakespeare may not have originally intended both roles to be played by the same person, but that directors combined the roles to save money. - Who is Furness? (see above)
- Fixed. Wrad 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Needs first name. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Wrad 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Act V, scene 1 is the only scene in which both men are present at the same time. Philostrate, as the less-important one, would thus probably have been stricken out, while Egeus would have filled both roles. - I don't quite understand - Egeus would have taken over his lines?
- Fixed. Wrad 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. Awadewit | talk
    - I did some real digging and clarified this a lot. Wrad 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Which edition of MND are you using? That should be included in the notes, along with the line number citations.~~
- Fixed. Wrad 21:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Italicize book titles in the notes.~~
- Done. Wrad 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Links to fix:~~

Comus

Removed link, it was off. The poem is about Comus, but the article doesn't talk about Phil's play. Wrad 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theseus (shouldn't this link to the Shakespearen character?)

That would be best, but Theseus has no page solely for a Shakespeare character, the current link is the best we have. Wrad 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would either red-link it like this (Theseus or delink it altogether. The current link is too confusing. Awadewit | talk 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philostratus (I'm just not sure this is the right one)

Made the link more specific. Wrad 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto (disambig)

Fixed. Wrad 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you proofread the page? I am seeing little errors here and there. Reading aloud is a good way to catch those... Awadewit | talk 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, let me know if you have questions and when you want me to re-review the article. Awadewit | talk 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I will pass this once we get the prose issues all hammered out. Since I know you are working on the picture, that can wait. Awadewit | talk 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egeus[edit]

'There is only one scene in Act V where both Egeus and Philostrate are present, and in this scene Egeus' character would have taken all of Philostrate's lines as his own.'

I am sure it would have been the atcor playing Puck who played this role,seeing as Theseus often doubled as Oberon and Hippolyta as Titania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.59.28 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]