Talk:Colley Cibber

older entries

Kudos to the authors of this article. It deserves to be featured. My own bit of literary trivia (about Brighton Rock) was something that nagged to be added (even if I got the spelling wrong). A lot of wikipedia articles are very ordinary bits of trivia and most are half-finished, but this one is in the top 0.1% --DiamondGeezer 19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pax to ALoan, but I done the deed. All my loose ends have been tidied up by Bishonen, and it's now a smooth read, a good tale, and a manageable and scholarly summary of a man famous and infamous. Geogre 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations - let me support is straight away... - ALoan (Talk) 09:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow - how can an article of this undoubted quality not be featured? It should be on WP:FAC instantly!

My only comment is, what about Brighton Rock and You are X and I claim my £5. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, done it now. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on FAC status. I think the idea has always been for this to become an FA, but Bishonen and I are both still doing work. There is one major problem with the article. We've gotten the research in, and the material is there, but there is a substantial disjunction, both stylistic and substantive, between the biographical and Dunce sections. As one reviewer said, it appears that the amount and level of detail increases when it gets to the dunce material. I have undertaken to smoothe it to some degree. When the article was being constructed, the idea was to put in everything, then to weed out later. The weeding has been delayed by various things, but it's underway now. Geogre 13:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine - I withdrew if from FAC as soon as Bishonen objected. Apologies if I have stepped on toes. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shoot, not my toes, anyway. I appreciate the information on the Graham Greene. I didn't know that. For my part, this is a good article that's just a little too sloppy at this point to be featured, but I'm just the Dunce guy (least ways I'm getting to be an expert on dunces). Geogre 15:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for my tuppence, in comparison to the general slew of sloppy articles, this is a pearl. But polish away :) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article, wonders have been worked but I'm not sure about this claim that Cibber was the first actor-manager. Surely the same thing could be said about Richard Burbage (incidentally a rotten article) and even more convincingly Thomas Betterton, who gave Cibber his first big break. --Mr impossible 19:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure Betterton gave Cibber his first break? I don't get that part. (The Richard Burbage article looks pretty good to me... now you've edited it! ;-) Whereas Thomas Betterton is pure 1911 EB, it's useless.) You make a good point about Betterton as actor-manager, but I wouldn't call him one in the same sense as Cibber and the later guys. He never had managerial power in anything like the way inaugurated by Cibber, even though he was indeed the de facto, or day to day, manager of first the Duke's and then the United company (at least so I claim in Restoration comedy). He didn't own the cooperative company that was formed in 1695, and definitely wasn't in a position to run it dictatorially, he was more primus inter pares. I can't tell you how nice it is to hear from somebody with an interest in these subjects, let me immediately hug you to death by asking you to please help with content at Shakespeare's reputation! (Compare the Talk page.) Bishonen | Talk 20:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

in the first paragraph...

He wrote some plays for performance by his own company at Drury Lane, and adapted many more from various sources, receiving frequent criticism for insensitive butchery of "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" (Alexander Pope).

I don't quite understand that sentence. Can someone reword it? Seems like "insensitive butchery" should be quoted and attributed (to pope?) insensitive butchery is surely not a "NPOV" phrase.......--Tothebarricades.tk 04:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't NPOV, because it's criticism, so it's slanted in a negative way. It isn't a quote, but I think it is an objective summary–at least, absolutely not an exaggerated summary– of the criticism that was levelled at Cibber's patchwork plays by his contemporaries. 18th-century flame wars were conducted in extremely robust terms, as you will have seen from various specifics further down in the article. Why, even Colley himself, as quoted below, called his own mixed-form productions a "Succession of monstrous Medlies that have so long infested the Stage"–you can imagine what his enemies called them! The Grub Street Journal said of Cibber's acting in a serious love scene that he looked like he was trying to steal the lady's purse rather than her heart. (That's pretty sad, after the way Cibber wrote about his youthful dream of playing a serious love scene with a beautiful actress.) And as the article states several times, Cibber's patchwork plays were the thing he got the most criticism for. Rude criticism, cruel criticism. But I do take your point. You think that in the Lead, before all the detail below about contemporary "storms of ridicule" etc, "insensitive butchery" comes across as being the voice of Wikipedia, an editorial judgement on the quality of his adaptations? Right? Of course that's not good. I can probably find some attributable quote to use instead, let me have a think. Thanks, tothebarricades. (Cool username!) Bishonen | Talk 05:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There you go, editorial "insensitive butchery" changed to quoted and attributed "miserable mutilation". :-) What do you think? Recycled from the "Other plays" section below. Robert Lowe is the learned 19th-century editor of the Gutenberg Apology text, I reckon he's a fine secondary source. Bishonen | Talk 21:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

It would be helpful for the article to note how his last name is pronounced. TotoBaggins

Very helpful. The article is hobbled when the reader doesn't know how to pronounce what he is reading. Spicemix (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely this is a reliable source? Spicemix (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits to the Lead on October 18 (=article on Main Page)

As the main contributor, I appreciate all improvements, and it's great that fresh eyes are reading and editing the article today, but it may be a little backwards to make drastic changes to the Lead before/without reading the rest, as the Lead is a summary of the article. Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense to telescope Cibber's brash personality and his laureateship into one sentence in the Lead, stating that the former gained him the latter... sheesh. Or to say that two of his more tasteless comedies are interesting documents. Those are considered his two best comedies, as the article explains further down. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. Will try to maintain character of better edits with fidelity to your comments. Metaeducation 12:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I do appreciate your consideration and your edits. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Colley gay?

Hey Bish!

After the discussion that such a topic has generated on Shakespeare, i'm almost loathe to ask here, but my curiosity isn't satisfied. In searching for something over the weekend, I stumbled across the fact that evidently Mr. Cibber has been included in the Gay Literary Canon. I noted that your article says nothing on the subject (besides the fact that he was married and had children, which, as we all know, means nothing) but do you have any clue as to why he might be included? I'm praying that I don't receive a visit from Bishzilla for asking. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a noted flirt (with women), keeper of mistresses, and frequenter of (straight) brothels. I've never heard any gossip about gay escapades, let alone a gay identity, and bear in mind that gossip did tend to gather round him. My impression from his plays is that, while he doesn't like women much, he's intensely interested in them. That adds up to "probably not" for me, but maybe the Gay Mafia knows something I don't. :-P Who said he's in the Gay Literary Canon? Do you happen to know if Rictor Norton mentions Cibber in any of his books? Bishonen | talk 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I'll have to check again. I was looking for something in regards to Colley and it brought up info on a boo called The Gay Literary Canon and he appeared in the list of authors included. I will check again and see who edited the book. Had I a copy, I'd be interested to see what was said in regards to his sexuality. As always, thanks for your response! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: It is likely that Cibber is included in the 'Gay Literary Canon' on account of his daughter Charlotte Charke, who lived for a significant part of her life as 'Charles Brown' or 'Master Brown'. In addition to her complex sexual and gender identity, her propensity to autobiography i.e. A Narrative of the Life of Mrs Charlotte Charke &c, which was, it seems, intended to repair their estrangement might connect him with her lifestyle. Equally, Cibber's own significant role in the development in authorial and acting terms of the fop in literature, would legitimately place him within the realms of gender and sexuality studies. Is there not a constant question around the actual sexual interest / capacity of Sir Novelty Fashion / Lord Foppington.

In brief, I can find no suggestion that Cibber himself exhibited any 'gay' behaviour (no he is not mentioned in Rictor Norton) the association would be more familial and for the content of his work.

Cibber's grave

According to poetsgraves.co uk, (http://www.poetsgraves.co.uk/List%20of%20other%20Poets.htm) Colley Cibber was buried in either: The Danish Church, Wellclose Square, Shadwell, London. (Demolished 1870) Or: in Grosvenor Chapel, Mayfair, London, England. Ogg 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) According to this website (http://www.doubleo.fsnet.co.uk/bgstgeorgeeast.htm) the Danish Church had been designed by Caius Gabriel Cibber (1630-1700), father of the actor/ dramatist. Ogg 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Date permutations

Cibber seems to have an unusually high number of permutations of his birth and death dates on the web. Birth is sometimes given as 11 June (= 11/6), sometimes 6 November (= 6/11). Death is sometimes given as 12 November (= 12/11), sometimes 11 December (= 11/12). I've found examples of all 4 possible matching pairs. Given that confusion, are we absolutely certain it's 11 June-12 November, not 6 November-11 December? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Errors about Love's Last Shift

Many blatant errors exist on this page:

Two of the most obvious: subtitle of Love's Last Shift is not "Virtue Rewarded" but "The Fool in Fashion"

And, the article says that Love's Last Shift was never performed after the 1690s unlike its sequel, Vanbrugh's The Relapse -- that's wrong. It was performed through out the eighteenth century. Check The London Stage, A calendar of plays 1660-1800 for details about performances.

NPOV

Several statements in the dispute between Pope / the other Scribblerus members and Cibber strike me as contravening the NPOV.

• "The most famous conflict Cibber had was with Alexander Pope, the greatest poet of the age." — By raising Pope up, it demeans Cibber's point-of-view. Requires a reference additionally.
• "took every opportunity to attack him in his poetry, and easily got the laughers on his side." — Suggests an obvious favouring of Pope, but doesn't seem supported by a reference and probably less clear-cut than this statement makes it.
• "was bound to look even worse than it was when he squared up to a master of style like Pope." — Seems to be an insertion of the author's POV, and make a fact of an opinion. — MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty easily referenced, not that I'm going to bother. Pope won the battle of words convincingly, both in the eyes of contemporaries and later critics. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond. Are you saying that you personally aren't going to reference the statements because you don't have time, or are you suggesting that there is no problem (because Pope in your view won the war of words)? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Both - not my view, but the general view. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's the most widely held view, but it still needs referencing. Hopefully someone can make the necessary changes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that references are needed, especially in an FA article, but I moved the POV tag down to the section in question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"The greatest poet of the age" is not encyclopaedic. Therefore should be removed, some qualification or reference would be necessary to meet expected standards.

Likewise '...easily got the laughers on his side", quite apart from being quite oddly expressed, needs to be supported by reference or removed.

This section seems to have been the subject of dispute without resolution for sometime, therefore I think it would now be fair for some judicious editing to take place to bring it back to a position of neutrality and compliance with guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiduosity14 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Because the pronunciation is disputed (and no reliable source is cited), I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.90.87 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colley Cibber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111093235/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Cib1Apo.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Cib1Apo.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111094222/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Cib2Apo.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Cib2Apo.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)