Talk:Drapier's Letters

Wikipedia condraticts itself as to the value of Wood's Irish coinage

According to the entry taken from the Wiki article on Wood (see below) the coins were not inferior, nor was the coinage a scam. Swift's attack on it may have gained him fame and approbation in Ireland as a patriot and saviour, but was it truly based. Has it just been assumed that Swift's accusations were accurate? Was the accusation of a debased coinage merely the 'conventional wisdom' or a popular myth at the time in Ireland (smarting under English rule and from secondary status) and, indeed even accepted today as fact without evidence, or was there proof positive of an attempt to debase the coinage for profit and at the disadvantage of Ireland? Might Swift have been deceived or self deceived on the matter, and so his rightous indignation, combined with his skill with the pen, found a facile target, and an outlet for his frustrated and devastating vehemance.

[edit] Wood’s Halfpence William hoped to make a profit producing coins for use in Ireland and America. During the first half of 1722 the king's mistress, the Duchess of Kendal, obtained a patent from the Earl of Sunderland for coining copper money for Ireland. Wood thought this would be a profitable enterprise so he purchased the royal patent from the duchess for £10,000. In his indenture from George I dated June 16, 1722 Wood was authorized to produce up to 360 tons of halfpence and farthings for Ireland at 30 pence to the pound over a period of fourteen years for an annual fee of £800 paid to the king. These Hibernia coins were heavier and thus intrinsically more valuable than the coppers then circulating in Ireland. They were certainly less profitable for Wood to mint than his lighter weight Rosa Americana issues. (Hibernia's weighed sixty halfpence to the pound as compared to 120 Rosa Americana halfpence to the pound!). When including the costs of production and the £10,000 fee paid to the Duchess of Kendal, Mossman has calculated Wood would have lost £4,871 over the fourteen years of the patent. Thus from Wood's standpoint the Hibernia coin specifications were too generous based on the cost of production.

Wood's coinage was extremely unpopular in Ireland as a result of the publication of Jonathan Swift's The Drapier's Letters, so these were recalled. Among other things, Swift suggested that the coins were of inferior quality, but assays carried out by Sir Isaac Newton, at that time Master of the Mint, showed that the copper “was of the same goodness and value with that which was coined for England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.178.21.37 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This results from the fact that Wood never minted his coin in the amount that would be necessary, therefore, one could never know. And Newton's assay didn't state what the assay in the English Privy Council's release stated, so there was some propaganda and exaggeration going on on both sides. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct title?

Which is the correct full title? The article name suggests "The Drapier's Letters", but the article is inconsistant but generally uses just "Drapier's Letters" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The title is "Drapier's Letters". The article name has an article that, if it wasn't at the beginning, would be lowercase. Ehrenpreis, Ferguson, Smith, and Scott all refer to the work as Drapier's Letters or an individual piece as a Drapier's letter. This labeling is used by the Oxford Authors and Oxford World's Classics edition of Swift's works. Herbert Davis is the only one to introduce "the" into the title, and his title is The Drapier's Letters to the People of Ireland. Swift did not name the work, except for the individual letters. The naming of this work is similar to The Battle of the Books and Gulliver's Travels, which were changed after the fact. According to standard scholarly usage, it is "Drapier's Letter I" or "the first Drapier's letter". Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the article name be changed to the actual name of the work? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be something difficult. Which name do you use? It was originally printed as the original titles, or collected as "Fraud Detected"/Fraud Detected. Is it known by that title? Probably not. The original letter titles are used quite often. It is known as "the Drapier's Letters", but "the" cannot be properly italicized since it is not in a literary title except for one instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:MOS#Article titles prefers that we avoid 'The', except for proper names, as in The Hague, why not rename this page? When I Google for 'The Drapier's Letters' the top hit is this Wikipedia article, which is a bad sign. We are evidently the main online authority that believes 'The' is part of the name. We should reflect the most common usage, not pioneer our own. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am for a change if it will not interfere with the FAC review process. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing questions

Set 1

Well, this is fun! I always love reading about Swift! I'm going to start my list of copy editing questions here:

• He was later honored for his service to the people of Ireland. - Could his service to the people be made a little more explicit? When reading this sentence I was a bit confused - why was he honored, exactly?

• It seems like paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead could be combined, since they focus on Swift as "Irish hero".

• When it was thought by many that William Conolly’s Commissioners of the Revenue might pay the military with the coin and the people of Ireland be forced to accept them - Don't we need to specify an "Irish military" of some sort here? It does not seem that the English government was proposing to pay the English military with these coins.

• During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of State, pushed Walpole into defending Wood's patent while he simultaneously attempted to destroy the patent in order to remove Walpole as his rival in the king's favor. - The "he" has an unclear referent - grammatically it could be referring to "Wood" or "Walpole", but I think it is supposed to refer to Lord Carteret, is that correct? This needs to be reworded for clarity.

• Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several relevant pamphlets. - Can we be more specific here than "relevant"? Can we describe their pro-Irish concerns a little more specifically?

• The obvious disadvantages of Wood's inferior coinage were forensically detailed in the first of the pamphlets - Is "forensically" the right word here? It sounds a bit anachronistic.

• a talented and skilled draper who was connected to the people of Ireland and religiously devout - What does "connected to the people of Ireland" mean?

• There is debate in the academic community over how much Swift may have wished his audience to identify him as the Drapier through the Drapier's constant inclusion of religious imagery - I'm not quite sure what this means - does it mean identify Swift personally or does it mean identify with the persona of the draper through religious imagery? This needs to be reworded for clarity.

• Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. - Is there any speculation in the scholarship why this might be?

• Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him after the publication of the third and fourth letters - Accusations of treason were leveled against the drapier or Swift or the author?

• the Drapier was condemned like William Molyneux, whose Case of Ireland pleaded for independence for the same reasons - Could we get a publication date on this?

• The letter written to Middleton was signed with Swift's name[2], and the "Humble Address" was published after the conflict had ended - Were both the sixth and seventh letters published after the controversy? This is a bit unclear.

• It was titled as "Fraud Detected" by the Drapier Club in 1725 - I don't understand this - what is the Drapier Club? Did they republish it? This statement needs expansion and context.

• Although it was titled "to the Shop-keepers", the internal address is "To the tradesmen, shop-keepers, farmers, and common-people in general of Ireland". - Can you say anything else about the "internal address" or subtitle? If not, I would delete this sentence - the reader already has the subtitle and without any analysis added from the scholarship, repeating it is not of much help.

• This letter was also included in a letter sent to the future lord lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Carteret, on 28 April 1724 - This also needs more historical context - what letter? sent by whom? why?

• Throughout his monetary arguments, the Drapier constantly acknowledges how humble his station in life is, and incorporates theological and classical to mock Wood. - "theological and classical" what?

• However, the final judgment was not yet, and the Drapier also emphasized the immediate reality of threat to business and persons along with his scriptural claims. - Is this supposed to be an actual reference to the Final Judgment?

• There are many Anglican overtones the Drapier's combination of a duty to God with duty to one's king and country. - If we can't explain this, can we at least give an example?

• However, the final judgment had not yet come, and the Drapier also emphasized the immediate reality of threats to business and persons. - This needs to be explained in more detail - we have lost sight of Swift's argument against Wood's coins here.

• The language and examples the Drapier uses to describe the possible harm resulting from the introduction of the coin into Irish society were viewed as extreme or exaggerated, but many critics and historians have determined that Swift's imagery was grounded in truth. - Meaning what, exactly? This needs to be explained in more detail.

• Even Swift's personal attacks upon Wood's character represented a common depiction of people in Wood's class and occupation. - This doesn't mean that Wood deserved the attacks - I don't know how justified it is to include this sentence after a sentence claiming that the pamphlets were rooted in "truth".

I'll just keep adding as I go. I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. His service was writing the letters which helped to force the withdrawal of the patent. 2. Readability would separate the two paragraphs, according to the SMOG rating system (which deals with paragraph lengths and readability). 3. The military in Ireland was the English military, because Ireland was still under the control of the King, and the army controlled by English officers. 4. "he" refers to Carteret. It sounded funny to put Carteret again before "simultaneously". If you can rework it to remove the potential silliness, feel free. 5. Should read "political pamphlets" and not "relevant pamphlets". 6. Forensics has been around for a very long time. The word comes from Latin, forensis (sp?). 7. Have roots in the community? Irish as Irish can be? Not an English citizen who was basically exiled into Ireland based on political opposition? Take your pick. 8. It means Swift=Drapier. There is debate over if he wanted to be identified as the Drapier or not. 9. No. When my paper is published on the issue, then maybe. But then I wouldn't be able to cite myself. So no. 10. Both. However, there was no legal evidence to prove Swift was the Drapier. But "his" refers to the Drapier in context. 11. Published 1698. Ferguson gives dates and background of Molyneux and his work on p. 20 12. The "Drapier's Club" was, basically, Faulkner. There is no real information on who were members, what they did, etc. The term is vague, unsure, but they published the first letter in the Dublin Journal (owned by Faulkner) as "Fraud Detected" and later as a small collection (of the original five public letters) on October 2, 1725 as Fraud Detected: or, The Hibernian Patriot. Ehrenpreis details this on p. 317. 13. The wording was to distinguish between the placement of "shop-keepers" in the title. There is no criticism on why the name changes, so it would be impossible to add an explanation. 14. Just a random letter from Jonathan Swift. Possibly to brag. 15. Probably "allusions" and was dropped during an edit. 16. The Drapier refers constantly to the final judgment or to "God's judgment". 17. "duty to God with duty to one's king and country" is an example of an Anglican concept from the sentence. 18. The threat to businesses is part of Swift's argument against Wood, as with the threat to the soul. Swift emphasized the moral and economic components of the threat. 19. Critics have stated that Swift is actually using the truth even though he may appear to be exaggerating. No more, no less. 20. The author cited goes to great lengths to show how the attacks were true. If there is a competing point of view, then it would be introduced to defend Wood. However, unlike Walpole, Wood did not have a historian willing to take up a defense of his character. Even Coxe, Walpole's defender throws Wood under the bus. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Set 2

• Although the Drapier may allude to the Duchess of Kendall in the first letter, he shifts his focus in the second letter to put the blame on the Whig party. - I'm not sure why this sentence needs an "although" - what am I missing?

• In particular, Wood's offer of three proposals alongside the Privy Council's report were a source of criticism. - This is unclear - what kinds of proposals? why were they criticized?

• The Drapier emphasizes his humble nature and simple understanding in accord to his audience, the nobility - I don't understand - how does his "humble nature" and "simple understanding" appeal to his noble audience? This needs to be clearer.

• The basis of the attack is on the full printing of the "Report of the Committee of the Most Honourable the Privy-Councill in England". - Unclear - do you mean something like "After the full printing of the "Report", the Drapier unleashed his attack..."?

• The central argument in the letter is that the English have negated the rights of the Irish people by not relying on a completely English system to pass the patent without any respect to the Irish Parliament. - I can't follow this and it seems to contradict the last paragraph of the section.

• This image resonated with the people, and a message was written by people of Dublin in regards to the Drapier and Swift - "a message"? to whom? Is this really the right word?

• Paragraphs 3 and 4 of "To the Nobility and Gentry" are a bit hard to follow - can we explain everything in a bit more detail?

Fascinating stuff! Awadewit (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the big block quote in the "To the People of Ireland" section, are some of the words supposed to be underlined?

• The rest of the constitutional debate was split over the nature of Poynings' Law, a law that was later used to usurp Irish parliamentary independence, and the Drapier picked up Molyneux's merging of proof against the law being used to control Irish parliamentary procedure with Locke's political philosophy - This is not clear.

• Lord Carteret read passages about the Irish constitutional independence to the Irish Privy Council and claimed that they were treasonable - passages from the letter?

• Archbishop King responded to the letter by saying they were "ludicrous and satyrically write".[9] - Just checking that this is the correct spelling - if so, should there be a "[sic]" after "write" or is punning?

• Lord Carteret wrote that the matter was an "unfortunate accident" and he did not want to respond in such a way - I don't think it is totally clear what "the matter" was.

• he Archbishop publicly supported the constitutional actions more than the other three, which caused others of political importance to criticize him.[10] - Do we know what others criticized him? Or at least who they were aligned with? This is a bit vague.

Taking a small break to get something to drink! Awadewit (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)