Talk:John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester

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

Plaigerism - NOT![edit]

(Ratagonia (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please note that most of the text of the article has been taken from here, with the permission of the website owner and copyright holder (=mym). Since I initiated the contact and asked for permission to use, I can vouch for this being the right person.--Bishonen 01:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added Film Trailer[edit]

Not sure about procedure here but hope this is ok. Might be cool to add the size of the Quicktime movie or alternative formats?

tagged for copyediting[edit]

this article is full of grammatical errors, most notably a number of sudden tense changes. it's also repetitive and confusing as is, as the earl's history is recounted at first in brief and then again in detail.

Where's the Rake?[edit]

One of the most interesting aspects of Wilmot's life is his reputation for some of the most epic fornications that the literary world has ever seen. Unfortunately, it is not reflected in this article. Where are his men? Where are his poems? I find this to be a decidedly incomplete and uninteresting version of the 2nd Earl of Rochester's biography, not to mention quite a lackluster list of his works.

Rubbish! Rochester was not just a polymorphos pervert & drunk & the article is meant to be a biography, not an edition of the poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.163.135 (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION: Copyright Problems[edit]

Whilst the article may have been copied from "Mym's Website", the text originally comes from the 'Everyman's Poetry' edition of ROchester's poems. If I get time I'll re-write it, but for now I thought it should be pointed out....

Therefore, the incorrect attribution has been removed from the article proper pending verification. 81.107.46.167 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the wikipedia article is almost cut-and-paste copy from the "Biography at druidic.org". Shameful.

Idiot, the poster of this article fully acknowledges their indebtedness & the Everyman edition of Rochester is probably one of the most woefully inadequent, & just plain bad, pieces of scholarship (so called) ever produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.163.135 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected birth date[edit]

26-5-06: Corrected birth date from the 10th of April to the 1st; His Earlship was born on April Fool's Day. :)

Epigram for the King[edit]

The epigram on the King that is now generally accepted to be accurate goes:

We have a pretty witty king...

Peter Porter, a big fan, quotes it as such.


Political activity: The facts?[edit]

In the film The Libertine, Rochester is portrayed as shunning political involvement, until, during his final illness, he makes a dramatic speech in Parliament, essentially saving the English monarchy.

Can anybody please add at least some sketch of the facts to the article? Thanks. -- 201.78.193.119 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertine is not a good historical source and the final redemption of Rochester with his speech to Parliament is particularly bad. He largely stayed out of politics, though he did take his seat in the House of Lords and (going from memory here) was recorded as voting along Whig lines. At least, I seem to recall that being mentioned somewhere. Maybe in Norman's biography or in Greene's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvbourne (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link added: 26-08-06[edit]

Added a link in the 'External Links' section to the Thesis Website of a student who has studied Rochester's poetry. I think it's worth a look, even if it's just for the bibliography; some good books there for anyone who needs more detail on the Earl. Also added the name of Jeremy Lamb's book which is a must-read for any Wilmot fan.

In response to 'political activity'.. from what I've read it seems that while the Earl had definite interests in politics, he tended to keep clear of it unless for poetic purposes. In my readings it seems it wasn't until his later years that he took a more serious interest in them. I believe there are various references to politics in his letters to Savile (Rochester-Savile Letters, 1671-1680: The Ohio State University Press, 1941) but I have yet to obtain a copy of this book personally. Several copies are available on the net, but at a high price. While a very good film in itself, 'The Libertine' has some gapingly obvious flaws and I recommend doing some reading from more accurate sources or some internet hunting for your info. :) Hope this was a help!

Pointless[edit]

It would appear that any corrections or additional information that gets added to this section is periodically reset/deleted. As such, the information in this article is no longer accurate, even for something as simple as a birth date. (Which I've already corrected twice.) For those of you using this for information on the Earl, please double check the information somewhere else as this site is clearly no longer reliable.


Works and influence[edit]

Recently, I've added some citations. I've also altered some of the text. I've removed the comment on Rochester's History of the Insipids as an attack on Charles II, because Vieth, the main editor of Rochester, argues it not to be his work. As an aside, if someone wants to reintroduce Rochester's criticism of the King, A Satyr on Charles II ("I'th'isle of Britain, long since famous grown"), is the most famous and most important lampoon, for Rochester had to flee the court after mistakingly handing it to the king. JoeBlogsDord 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work JoeBlogsDord. I am currently reading A Profane Wit: The Life of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester. it is a detailed, and wonderful account which I hope make use of the things I learn. Daytrivia 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. A Profane Wit is meant to be very good. Would it be worthwhile creating an "influence" section, stating who influenced Rochester (Hobbes (Antony Woods: court turned him towards depravity and "absolute Hobbist), Boileau, Montaigne, (both 'Satire against Reason and Mankind), and who he translated? JoeBlogsDord 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an influence section may just be what a student or serious researcher could use. Daytrivia 00:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, Vieths' edition of Rochester is more than thirty years old! The most reliable, & standard, edition is Harold Loves' 1999 edition for O.U.P. &, by the way, no self respecting Rochester scholar would ever argue that the History of Insipids was written by him! (How old are you? Over 60?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.163.135 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influences[edit]

Feel free to adapt, and insert into the main text.

Rochester's poetry displays a wide range of learning, and a wide range of influences. These included imitations of Malherbe, Ronsard, and Boileau. Rochester also translated, or adapted, from classical authors such as Petronius, Lucretius, Ovid, Anacreon, Horace, and Seneca JoeBlogsDord 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Seneca, not Seneca JoeBlogsDord.

JoeBlogsDord 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The acknowledged source of this article contradicts what's written here...[edit]

The bottom of the page, External Links, has the following: 

   "Ynys-Mon, Mark, ed. Poems and a short Biography at 
    druidic.org. (The biography is the source of this article.)"

The first words of this article state that Rochester's mother was a Parliamentarian by descent, and inclined to Puritanism. Yet this article states that his mother was a Royalist by descent, and a staunch Anglican. Some research needs to be done to determine which (if either) is the correct statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.177.78 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter part doesn't particularly contradict. Puritans ARE Anglicans; they never broke with the Anglican Church like the Dissenters did. All Puritans are Anglicans, though the reverse isn't necessarily true. "Staunch" Anglican in fact implies puritan. - Sestet (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?[edit]

The person who marked this page as possible copyright infringement failed to mention why here on the talk page, as the message itself clearly instructs. So... What's the problem? - Sestet (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message itself does not even remotely instruct that. The template self states the link where I think the copyvio is from. In casu [1] or google cache at [2]. Garion96 (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that permission probably was granted way back in 2004 (see top of this page). I'm not sure what the procedure was then for confirming permission, but I've asked the copyright holder again. If I don't get a response from him, I'll try contacting Bishonen.--DO11.10 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder has confirmed permission, and I've removed the tag. OTRS should be along shortly.--DO11.10 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've confirmed that the copyright holder has released the text under the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plunkett and MacLeane in Cultural Reference?[edit]

There is a representation of Lord Rochester in the film Plunkett and MacLeane. Granted, the representation isn't wholly historically accurate (probably), but the reference is missing in his historical context. Rather than add it out of hand, thought that I'd check to see if there were a reason why it wasn't added already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutho (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester → John Wilmot – Going by pageviews, the Earl of Rochester appears to be the primary topic. Векочел (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCBRITPEER. The existing primary redirect is sufficient. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCBRITPEER. He was generally known as the Earl of Rochester, not John Wilmot. I fail to see the basis for the nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wilmot,_2nd_Earl_of_Rochester&oldid=1194423062"