Talk:Robert Gould

Untitled

 * After 1692 and the second edition of Poems, mostly Satyrs, Gould did not publish again until his death (excepting The Rival Sisters, see below).

You do not forget his satire on money first published in 1693? (Though, as we said, not his best work...), getting back to my tedious work of packing all my stuff into boxes. --Olaf Simons 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that the Satyr on Money was written first in '93? I recall its being included in Poems, Mostly Satyrs, and that's '92.  (Bibliography on Gould is one of many problems with working on him.)  Geogre 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what my title page scan says. It can of course be that it was printed Nov. or Dec. 1692 and published with the next year's title page. That was a usual practice. I did not check this and should add a note on my edition if you can prove it to be the case. Still looking forward to our publishing some more of his poems (a case in which you can adopt the one I put into the web). --Olaf Simons 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I started working on The Play-house a few weeks ago, so I should, God willing, have something useful soon. Of all of his poems, I think Play-house is the most useful generally for contemporary readers (e.g. check out The City Heiress).  Geogre 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nasty words against my private heroine (going to teach Behn's Love-Letters in my first course in Oldenburg). --Olaf Simons 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're reading Love Letters now, we really need an article on it. I've read the novel, both parts, but I don't have the material for writing an article on it.  (The "Oroonoko is the first English novel" claim is still being made.  It's as if no one is even trying.  Love Letters is five years earlier.)  Geogre 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I do not know whether Behn wrote the first English Novel. That debate is complex and I'd go much further down in history. Have you seen my Novel-Article? More later this week (I have arived in Oldenburg unpacked and got rid of the the van, the Internet-Cafee is terrible, the keyboard tedious, should unpack my stuff at "home"... best --Olaf Simons 17:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"You don't OWN it, so I can fact tag it to hell and back"
Ask your questions on the talk page before defacing. I will point out that "her name" is singular and "fate" is singular; far from "illiterate," it is entirely grammatically logical. Furthermore, it is British usage and antique usage to say "fates" of an individual -- it's one of those dust besprent inheritances of Latin training -- and therefore, while it is certainly acceptable, it is by no means requisite.

Authorial practice.... Hmmm. I'm not sure how to answer that except to say that I have read every single poem he wrote that survives. If you want citations to his overview other than Eugene Sloan, then you will be wanting what does not exist. Some persons of limited scope and ability have written on this or that play, this or that poem, and one has claimed to write on the entire author and yet (mysteriously) confined herself only to the texts Sloan quotes. I have read all those dreary odes he wrote, all the Poems all the Works. I've read the uncollected works from the 80's.  I will not provide a citation to myself, though, and it is sufficient to say that it is indeed simply a truth that the author does not write satires on a single figure. To find corroboration of a negative would be impossible. Instead, let me ask you or anyone else to find a poem addressed to a single satirical figure, and then the fact will be disputed and when disputed require one of those lovely "fact" tags.

Throughout the history of this article, I have been quite laid back about edits, so I don't think I'm susceptible to the wide eyed chant of "OWN," but let's show some sense. 1. Communicate. 2. Query. 3. Avoid being dogmatic about one's own usage and then shouting that the other person is dogmatic for reverting. 4. Avoid inserting a critical point of view of your own to question a critical point of view. Geogre 11:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another question was "Dildo does." Honestly, I wrestled with that text for a while. First, I wondered if it was a misprinting in the first edition. Then I wondered if it was a misprint in the Poems. Since it was done that way in both, I tried to figure the syntax of the line. The only reading that seemed to make sense was that "flaming Dildo does." Admittedly, that's quite strange. However, Rochester had written and published (74? I can't remember now) To Signoir Dildo regarding the burning of "contraband" on the London docks. His poem personifies the plain Italian gentleman with his leather coat being the most popular lover in London, etc. So, how popular was Rochester's poem? I don't know. How popular was it in the home of Dorset? That seems more answerable. So, between Fleetwood Sheppard and Dorset, would Gould have read it? Almost certainly, but certainly likely. It's tenuous, and it's a textual emendation. It's best evidence. Geogre 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)