Talk:The Four Stages of Cruelty

Untitled

Sorry - I missed the peer review and have only just got around to adding some snippets from Uglow (a heavy read - I am making slow progress). I hope the additions are acceptable.

One thing I noticed today was that one of the lawyers in plate 2 - the one who seems to be gesticulating towards the skies - seems to be wearing a black cap: another foreshadowing of the coming execution, perhaps? And unlike the other three, no-one in that image seems to be pointing. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the black cap may be just a ribbon: the topmost lawyer has one too. I haven't seen anything about it in the sources, but it is an interesting point. The man noting the number is pointing to Tom's name in the book (took me a while to spot that one, but nobody seems to mention this a theme except in the last two plates). Yomangani^talk 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Holding a pen and pointing?! Well spotted. The lawyer's black headgear looks larger than a ribbon to me - a handerkerchief-sized effort, perhaps. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not a black cap; much larger and only worn by judges, & then hardly in the street. It looks like a section of the wig has come off to show the cloth backing underneath. Probably then as now, barristers often wore very decrepit court gear.

On another point, I wonder if 1s (per print) would make them really cheap enough for the "lowest rank of men"? About 2 days of a labourer's wages, I think? But I'm sure the lower middle classes loved them. Now they would be free with the Mail on Sunday. Johnbod 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has been vandalizing this article. I would remove one bizarre addition, and another would appear. Keep an eye on it.

The stikeouts are on the additions by 149.135.53.69 who had made a couple of vandalized edits in this article. Requesting semi-protection! RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 04:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to comments, especially to someone elses' comments, should always be deleted. Disinclination 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it even count as vandalism if you edited your own comments, or could you plead insanity? :v Villa de njd 11:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I do something wrong? All I did was remove a sentance, and then another appeared reading "The goats will NOT be pleased!", so I removed that as well..

Looks as though someone has gone through the entire article and changed spellings of words like "the", etc. I'm new here - what's to keep people from hacking? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curm2007 (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 19, 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely nothing. Isn't that comforting? There's nothing to keep people from "hacking", but articles, especially the featured article of the day, are heavily monitored by other users. ShadowHalo 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reverts are have caused the loss of a chunck of text. Maybe that was intentional because it was excessive, or redundant. Maybe, a couple of days from now, when the vandalisim dies down, someone can look back to the edits on this date, and re-incorporate what was lost 69.37.8.211 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First stage of cruelty - structure

I made an edit which was subsequently changed again by User:Yomangani. I've put it back to my version and am explaining here why I think it's better.

The structure of the article before my edit was essentially:

• Introduce Tom Nero
• Describe what he is doing to dog
• Describe his appearance
• Describe what another boy is doing to try to save dog
• Describe other boy's appearance

I didn't like this because I think that a better structure would be to focus on Tom Nero (and his appearance), then go on to what he is doing, then go on to how that corresponds to the surrounding environment. My edit therefore resulted in the following structure:

• Introduce Tom Nero
• Describe his appearance
• Describe what he is doing to dog
• Describe what another boy is doing to try to save dog
• Describe other boy's appearance

User:Yomangani commented that reordering didn't really work as it made comments about him before he was identified, reordered again. I don't understand this comment. It describes Tom, then comments on his appearance. Where does my edit have such a basic error. Anyway, User:Yomangani ended up as

• Introduce Tom Nero
• Describe what he is doing to dog
• Describe what another boy is doing to try to save dog
• Describe other boy's appearance
• Describe Tom Nero's appearance

That doesn't seem sensible to me - Tom Nero is the important person here, we should have the information about him early on in the article, not hidden following a discussion of the plate's representation of King George. I've therefore put it back to my ordering. GDallimore 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I could see the problem you had with the original order as it divided the events surrounding the dog (not that I thought that was a major problem), but your reordering resulted in comments on his badge appearing before he had been pointed out, so rather than the sequence you describe above, it actually resulted in:

• Introduce Tom Nero
• Describe his appearance
• Identify him in the picture
• Describe what he is doing to the dog
• ...

I think it is better to point him out before describing him, which is why I reordered it a second time. Personally, I think the original order was fine: it's not as if the description of his clothing is so long that you will have forgotten the subject by the time we return to the dog. Yomangani^talk 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See where you're coming from now and have identified my issue with the original more precisely. I think the difficulty I had with the original text was the way it went into "A more tender-hearted boy... pleads with them to stop". It's the use of the them so long after the mention of the boys that jarred with me. I'll try correct that issue from the other end. Let me know what you think.GDallimore 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Yomangani^talk 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article

I'm intrigued by this spoken article Wikiproject and found this article to be written in such a pleasing visual style that it would be perfect for the project. I'm an actor and a sound technician with a southern English accent, so should be able to make a good fist of it. What do people think of this project? Is it worth the effort? GDallimore 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but please do a voice like Terry Jones pretending to be a woman when reading the letter (er...maybe not)Yomangani^talk 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's surreal. Do you know me from the real world? It's just that I did a play a couple of years back and was praised in the BBC review for my perfect Terry Jones impression. Seriously, though I had thought that the poems and the letter would be better recited in a more converational/upbeat style than appears to be the norm for these spoken articles, but I don't think I'd go that far! GDallimore 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, although I want to take a final look through the article and maybe suggest a couple more minor edits, I've started preparation record a spoken version of this article. One question before I get that far, though, how is "lambleſs" (from the third stage) pronounced? GDallimore (Talk) 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. A close examination of the scanned engraving suggests it is "lawless" (with a long s). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A Google search confirms that as the most likely word, too. Thanks. On a similar note, I'm not sure what Tho^s in "To Tho^s Nero at Pinne..." is supposed to mean.

I'd also like a consensus on how c's should be pronounced when speaking Latin? eg in medicina. I'm of the church latin school where it would be pronounced "medichina", but other options are "medisina" or the hard "medikina". Any preferences from anyone? GDallimore (Talk) 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tho^s" is obviously an abbreviation for "Thomas". The first thing that "Pinne..." brings to mind is Pinner, which I suppose is barely possible. Could be something like "Pinner's Court" instead. As for the Latin, I think you pay your money and take your choice. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the Pinne... would have had some relevance (some hangout for criminals or local dive or the like) but I was unable to find any reference to it. The Fasciculo di medicina is the Italian title so it will be "ch" there ("Faschiculo di medichina") Yomangani^talk 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. Feel a bit thick, now... Those two should have been obvious. Speaking before I think, again! GDallimore (Talk) 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the edits that I think are appropriate and will leave the article for a little while in case anyone feels like reverting any of the changes I made or suggesting something new. Otherwise, I'll start recording next week some time. GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Decided to try a test run of the fisrt half of the introduction. Would be useful to get some feedback before I continue. GDallimore (Talk) 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Text format

I have had a go at formatting the texts beneath the prints in a slightly more pleasing way. The configuration may not work for other readers, as it will depend on image size, text size, etc, so let me know if there are any problems. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better. Yomangani^talk 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there any discussion of the symbolism of the wrist/index finger business? Also, how did the dog get his heart out when they're only starting on his intestines? 68.39.174.238 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come across any. The cuts obviously show the attack was brutal and the severing of the finger highlights the fact that it is pointing at the book (as if by divine intent). I think a little license comes into play with the dog eating the heart. Freke probably hooked it out with his cane. Yomangani^talk 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the anatomists

In today's BBC Radio 4Today Programme the author of a recent paper[1] claimed that the obstetricians Smellie and Hunter are the anatomists depicted in The rewards of cruelty - and that they had many pregnant women murdered in order to acquire the cadavers they needed for their anatomical studies.

1. Shelton DC. The Emperor's new clothes. J R Soc Med 2010;103(2):46-50.

--peter_english (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard that. He claimed that Smellie was the body being dissected by William and John Hunter. It's hard to see how you could get a positive identification of Smellie from the contorted features of the corpse, but I'd like to read the paper to see who the leading expert on Hogarth was that concurred with Shelton's identification. Yomangani^talk 11:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Shelton claims that an international Hogarth scholar has endorsed the new identification of Smellie and Hunter within The Reward of Cruelty in a book entitled Hogarth's Hidden Parts. I have not seen this source. Can anyone check this out? Christophorus (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The reward of cruelty Media

The image file used for "The reward of cruelty" is incomplete, missing the heading and description. There is complete version here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/William_Hogarth_-_The_Fourth_Stage_of_Cruelty-_The_Reward_of_Cruelty_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Can this perhaps be used instead?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Four Stages of Cruelty. 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/20070927021445/http://www.nms.ac.uk/FileAccess.aspx?id=42 to http://www.nms.ac.uk/FileAccess.aspx?id=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Looking at this for the sweep of featured articles not reviewed since 2015. Overall, I think this an excellent work that's stood up, inasmuch as I (somewhat of a newcomer to FAC) understand the criteria. That said, there's extensive image sandwiching that a stricter eye than mine could complain about. I recognize the limitations of image placement for a short-ish visual arts article and don't consider this a perditious sin, but I think it a matter worth leaving a note about for posterity. Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)