Talk:Everyman (15th-century play)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Everyman (15th-century play) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I added some links, I think that more links should be added, though. Liist 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone added line breaks to the play summary. - Patrick Lucas 02:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a modernized version of the play (with new personifications like Science) being produced in the late 90s-early 2000s. Does anyone have more detailed information on this production? It sounds notable enough to include here... --Ingeborg S. Nordén 20:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyman is a play written in English. It was first published in the 1500's (16th century). Sources that say it was published in the late 15th century are taking a stand on the controversy related to the supposed origins of Everyman in a Dutch play (discussed in the article). We can't take a stand in that controversy without being POV - but we do know for certain that the English play Everyman was first published in the 16th century. -- Stbalbach 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the changes I made today: I thought the rational of whatever play is "better quality" would have been the original play seems pretty irrational and POV, my source does not support that "line of reasoning" at all. The Dutch play was awarded a public prize in 1485....I found a source that says the debate over what play came first is conclusively over, and cited it . I also make the article more clear that there was a winner in the debate (looks like they settled the matter in 1939). Goldenrowley 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "better quality" arguments are what AC Cawley references in his 1989 article (he's referencing other peoples arguments, not his own) - I can list the full bibliography if you want to research further. This is a tricky topic, I tried to maintain the ambiguity while also keeping the generally accepted view. Some scholars may say the case is closed, but the fact is, we simply don't have direct factual evidence and some room for doubt exists. Based on the balance of evidence one can say safely "probably", but not "certainly". -- Stbalbach 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you wrote today sounds very good. Thanks for adding the source for the quality argument. Goldenrowley 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "summary" is shorter than the play, yes, but it's longer than any other part of the article. Couldn't we cut out the quotes and reduce it to a paragraph? It looks more than a little unwieldy as-is. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altenmaeren, when this edit to the synopsis just removed the quotes, you undid it with the comment, "i think this thorough version might be better - discuss in talk?" I see no discussion here—only what I posted months ago. It's still too long. It still has too many quotes. How is this:

After a brief prologue asking the audience to listen, God speaks, lamenting that humans have become too absorbed in material wealth and riches to follow Him, so he commands Death to go to Everyman and summon him to heaven to make his reckoning. Death arrives at Everyman's side to tell him it is time to die and face judgment. Upon hearing this, Everyman is distressed, so begs for more time. Death denies this, but will allow Everyman to find a companion for his journey. Fellowship promises to go anywhere with him, but when he hears of the true nature of Everyman's journey, he refuses to go. Everyman then calls on Kindred and Cousin and asks them to go with him, but they both refuse. In particular, Cousin explains a fundamental reason why no people will accompany Everyman: they have their own accounts to write as well. Afterwards, Everyman asks Goods, who will not come: God’s judgment will be severe because of the selfishness implied in Goods’s presence.

Everyman then turns to Good Deeds, who says she would go with him, but she is too weak as Everyman has not loved her in his life. Good Deeds summons her sister Knowledge to accompany them, and together they go to see Confession. In the presence of Confession, Everyman begs God for forgiveness and repents his sins, punishing himself with a scourge. After his scourging, Confession declares that Everyman is absolved of his sins, and as a result, Good Deeds becomes strong enough to accompany Everyman on his journey with Death. Then Good Deeds summons Beauty, Strength, Discretion and Five Wits to join them, and they agree to accompany Everyman as he goes to a priest to take sacrament. After the sacrament, Everyman tells them where his journey ends, and again they all abandon him – except for Good Deeds. Even Knowledge cannot accompany him after he leaves his physical body, but will stay with him until the time of death.

Content at last, Everyman climbs into his grave with Good Deeds at his side and dies, after which they ascend together into heaven, where they are welcomed by an Angel. The play closes as the Doctor, enters and explains that in the end, a man will only have his Good Deeds to accompany him beyond the grave.

I've tried to edit the text a good bit: I've chopped it down from 595 words to 385. Before editing the main page, what does everybody say? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I was hoping to start a discussion here; didn't mean to imply that I'd already started one. I think this version you propose looks good -- although perhaps one or two quotes might still be suitable? Happy to reconsider, though. Altenmaeren (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my tone—you're right. As for the quotes, I don't see many other works that have extensive quotes in the synopsis, like Piers Plowman or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Maybe the first or final quotes?--Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- Taking a second look at it, I agree with you that the quotes (and they're of some fusty Victorian translation of it, for that matter) can be dispensed with. People who want to know more can always click through to an edition or translation of it. Altenmaeren (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information about a modern Canadian adaptation of Everyman for the following reasons:

- There's nothing to indicate that it was a notable production (the citation just links to the company's own site, and quoted audience testimonials certainly don't show notability).

- Other edits by the same user include a) adding the Canadian company in question to the page for Experimental Theatre and b) adding the company's own artistic director, who also played the lead role in Everyman, to the wiki pages for 2008 and 12 December - calling him a "celebrated international theatre performer". The gentleman in question was removed promptly from both pages, with reverters commenting: "rm entry with no article" and "yeah, who exactly?"

Also, the user who added the information about the company, this production, and its "celebrated" lead actor - to four different pages! - hasn't done the same for other productions by the same company (which - if their list of "past productions" is a complete one - all starred other actors).

Looks like self-promotion to me - especially since the description of the production was so earnest.

I haven't named names in case I'm wrong, because I wouldn't want this to appear in Google results for either the Canadian company or the actor/artistic director in question, if it turned out that he personally had nothing to do with the edits (additional: or even if he did - I don't want to embarrass someone for such a trivial "crime" as misusing Wikipedia!). Regardless of who added it, I do not feel that it should go back in without a citation to show that it was a notable production. I'd welcome discussion here if anyone thinks that's unreasonable.

Links supporting the above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everyman_%28play%29&type=revision&diff=584173013&oldid=583087526 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Experimental_theatre&diff=prev&oldid=637099087 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008&diff=prev&oldid=158428606 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_12&diff=prev&oldid=158428973 http://www.theatreencounter.com/pastproductions.html http://www.theatreencounter.com/company.html

Señor Service (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everyman (play). 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/20091130161143/http://homepage.mac.com/mseffie/assignments/everyman/everymansg.html to http://homepage.mac.com/mseffie/assignments/everyman/everymansg.html

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.

• 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) 06:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]