Jump to content

Talk:Ben Jonson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonson's date of birth

[edit]

Where does the birthdate of "c. June 11" originate? As far as I can tell, it copies an error that was corrected in the Peter Whalley edition of Underwoods, published in 1756. If you search googlebooks for "jonson gifford digby june january" you will get the whole story. This has been known at least since W. Gifford's 1816 Memoirs of Ben Jonson and I'm not aware of it having been contradicted. Yet June 11, or c. June 11, or even June 21 (Gregorian) are continually seen in reference works. Mark Shulgasser (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is the excerpt. It seems to be saying Jonson was born in 1573, not 1572, and on an unknown date because the supposed date of 11 June was a misreading of Kenelm Digby's "my birthday" as "his birthday". Digby was in fact born on 11 July, not 11 June, so that's a doubly erroneous misreading. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

This article needs an introduction and some sections. As it stands, here is the first paragraph:

Born in Westminster, Jonson's arms, "three spindles or rhombi," are the family device of the Johnstones of Annandale, a fact which confirms Jonson's own assertion of Border descent. His father died a month before Ben's birth, and his mother remarried two years later, to a master bricklayer. Jonson attended school in St. Martin's Lane, and was later sent to Westminster School, where one of his teachers was William Camden. On leaving, Jonson is said to have gone on to the University of Cambridge. Jonson himself said that he did not go to university, but was put to a trade immediately. He soon had enough of the trade, probably bricklaying, and spent some time in the Low Countries as a soldier.

Uh, ok, but who the heck is he? --Doradus 19:47, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow! This is a really bad article! I'll see if I can create some structure. The Singing Badger 20:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Holy crap, that was fast. Nice work! --Doradus 22:22, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Odd. I always thought that Ben Jonson was a good friend of Shakespeare, although he was critical (and appreciative) of his works. This article made it seemed as if Jonson hated Shakespeare's writings and person. Could anything be further from the truth? What does the word "tempestuous" suggest? Mandel 23:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry but is there some reason that his article doesn't say how or why Ben Jonson died? I was checking this for a school project and that would be really nice to know. If I find it before someone else does, I'll go ahead and add it I guess.

-March 31, 2005

Should something not be said about Jonson's poetry? I know it is not much read nowadays, but my understanding was that it was very influential in its time.

89.0.118.38 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Ben Jonson's Poetry contains a grave error: It confuses his poem "To Celia" (Drink to me only with thine eyes") with his poem "Come, My Celia".

August 3, 2007

89.0.118.38 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blathering on about ducks

[edit]

Does anyone have a citation for this quote? It sounds suspect to me (un-Jacobean in its language), but I could be wrong. The Singing Badger 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tweaked the line about the Gunpowder Plot so that it reflects my article. Also corrected spelling of my name. Solipsistic, but . . . FT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.82.115 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous productions of Jonson

[edit]

Just a thought, but since Jonson's work has been revived in the 20th and 21st centuries, should there be a section on famous productions of his work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.205.114 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

Great article, but I'm just a little confused about one detail. The account of Jonson's arrest in 1598, his appeal for benefit of clergy and subsequent conversion to Roman Catholicism: my history is generally very good, but I'm lost as to how he was given the freedom to convert to what was not a state recognised religion (especially given that five years earlier Marlowe was "fitted up" for having Catholic sympathies). Any explanations are very welcome. Absurdtrousers (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

Did he really have two sons called Benjamin? 86.186.147.5 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible - childhood mortality often resulted in Christian names being passed onto the same sex sibling subsequently born, as appears to have happened in this case. It does not appear the second son had a known age or we would be able to deduce a likely birth year.Cloptonson (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly attributed painting

[edit]

Could someone who knows how to edit correct the painting attribution? The painting shown here is NOT the famous C.17 portrait by Abraham van Blyenberch but a rather poor and relatively modern (C19?) copy. (Both are owned by the National Portrait Gallery, London - you can see both at their site.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.243.229 (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC) hello mi name is superstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.182.150 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in Lead

[edit]

These are generally deprecated when the body of the article covers the material and is referenced, but a statement has been challenged with a {{cn}} request and now has a citation. More in WP:LEADCITE. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

At present this is dotted about the article, wherever it's relevant to incidents in Jonson's life. Would there be any benefit in creating a short new section for this, or is it better as it is, cropping up in roughly chronological order? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, there would be benefit in grouping together, also in chronological order. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got round to a tilt at it. (I was going to say stab at it, but in the context that would have been inappropriate!) Suggestions? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dog latin

[edit]

The notion that orare Ben Jonson can mean "pray for Ben Jonson" is not supportable. To say that you would need the preposition pro as in Ora [Deum] pro Ben Jonson. As the object of an infinitive, the phrase would mean "to pray to [or beg] Ben Jonson", or as the subject of an infinitive phrase, it would mean "[that] Ben Jonson prays." None of it makes any sense, of course; this silly speculation and inaccurate translation of a phrase which is not Latin but English does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Rwflammang (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, should anybody get round to a new ==Religion== section, as suggested above, they would need to accommodate the fact that this is a misreading, and reference it accordingly. The current source fully meets WP:RS standards, but on another page her scholarship is called into question. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to leave it out, in the end; it's better leaving it with the gravestone information. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, it does need a fix, in line with User:Rwflammang's suggestion. Somewhen in the next couple of days/weeks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added, with a quote supporting the "insupportable notion". Glad I found this, rather than having to rely on my imperfect memory of my Latin studies!--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Does Jonson not exist in Popular Culture? Or if he does, is there some reason why this does not deserve to be included in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this and support the removal. There's really no reason to have trivia on pages like this. It's better to have those pages link in here. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If that's the new policy. I still don't see why the film is considered "random films". Or why the first complete works in 60 years is considered "trivia" - that won't ever link back here. The Sandman seems a little more tenuous and will link back, although there aren't many 16th century dramatists who appear in 21st century comic books? A bit of discussion might have been useful before 3RR was broken. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tired discussion. Whey would I want to go over it all again with you. Life is short, to be wasting time with something so self evident. Sorry for reverting you though martin, but these sections are almost never a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you must be exhausted by now. Sorry for keeping you up. Poor old Ben probably spinning in his upright grave. Or not. Still think the film deserves to be here. But it's "two against one", so not real contest, eh? But thanks for your apology. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No its not two against one. I wont revert you again, and lets see how we get on from here. We know each other, Im sure we can figure it out. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently (for me) it's two books against one film. But I'd prefer all three of course! A legacy section seems a good idea, although it's going to be rather a long jump of over 400 years. Yes, dw, I haven't forgotten The Prado, Ceoil. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there couldn't be discussion. Someone removed, boldly, you reverted, and that went back and forth a few times and I watched. Then you posted and I had my say. If you can find sources, the better thing to do is to make a legacy section, have a look at the bottom of the page of Murasaki Shikibu, and do like that. The problem with trivia sections, when not sourced, is that people add random stuff like cartoons and anime and computer games and they get way out of control. I think Alice in Wonderland is like that. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perfectly good point. You are quite right about the dangers. Maybe I can find a source to support the film here. Regards. It's just a shame that we have got to the situation where "In Popular culture" = "Trivia", especially for a 16th century poet! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I've read countless novels where he, or Kit Marlowe or someone shows up. I'm a reader, so that's understandable. But I could add all those books and probably bloat this by 10 or more items. Then films, games, etc., and so on and it just gets out of control. If the film were a Shakespeare in Love, then yeah maybe. But meh on this. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kit Marlowe", lol. But, yes, know what you mean. I guess it's a wannabe-Shakepeare-in-love. But maybe that demeans Ben, who was never a wannabe-bard (that Telegraph article is quite good, although what it has to do with The Olympics is anyone's guess!) Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'd like to see trivia dusted all over the place, but I've just realised that the poem Cynthia’s Revels: Queen and huntress, chaste and fair is sung, by beautifully eery female voices, on the fourth part of Mike Oldfield's 1978 album Incantations.
Ben Jonson himself is thus credited on the sleeve, although the text is listed as "Hymn to Diana".
Just thought I'd share. Noliscient (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprov

[edit]

So, huge sections of this article are just copy-pasted from other places on the internet and aren't cited. It also makes for some disorganized and confusing reading. Someone who knows a thing or two about the subject should try to re-work it. Brighamhb (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that "huge sections of this article are just copy-pasted from other places on the internet", then I think you should remove them asap. User:Moonriddengirl has a lot of experienec with copy-vio etc. Perhaps we should ask her for some advice. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonson's date of death

[edit]

Just for information – according to The Cornishman newspaper, on 15 August 1878 (page 3), Johnson died on 16 August 1637. Not 6 August 1637. Jowaninpensans (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be sure it was not a misprint, given it was published two centuries after Jonson's death and there is no one alive to corroborate the 19th century statement?Cloptonson (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's the OS/NS (Julian/Gregorian) issue. It's quite possible he died on 6 August Julian, which was the same day as 16 August Gregorian because the gap between the two calendars was 10 days at that time. Can someone verify this? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This confirms that premise. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders

[edit]

Is Drummond the only source for Jonson's military career? Do we know approximate dates for when he was in Flanders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Jonson. 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:

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) 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent unsupported additions

[edit]

There have been several additions to the article recently. They are all good, helpful additions, and there is no reason to revert or change them, but they are unsupported by any references. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salathiel or Solomon Pavy?

[edit]

The heading of the poem is actually Epitaph on S.P.. The notes in my edition (Routledge & Kegan Paul 1954, editor George Burke Johnston) call him Salomon (sic) and say that he was long misnamed Salathiel. The spelling of personal names varied, but perhaps it should be Salomon rather than Solomon? Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC) The name given in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is Salomon, and it is noted that the abbreviation Sal may have given rise to the mistaken Salathiel. It notes that Jonson only honoured three actors with epitaphs. Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note a's source?

[edit]

Where is the source for note a?
"Jonson's claim is interesting, since early printings of Shakespeare's work suggest that he tended to start a scene before giving up and trying again. His failure to cross the original attempts out left his printers unsure what needed to be deleted, though also allowed an insight into his creative process."
Rupp78 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be unsourced. There's a possible source by E. A. J. Honigmann in The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 56, No. 223 (Feb., 2005), pp. 37-48: here Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in a long time ago and must have forgotten to add a source-I've put it in. This is well-known, they're called 'false starts'. Blythwood (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information to add?

[edit]

Ben Jonson's poem Song:To Celia is published in the book Poetry for Students; Volume 23. Is it relevant to add something like this to his page as an accomplishment? 2600:1004:B201:FD27:C894:6771:EF93:AEF (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Jonson&oldid=1194438353"