Talk:Christopher Smart

message: As Smart was a poet, it would be nice to mention poetry. What poems would be best to include? How long per poem? Any excerpts? Please place suggestions here for his "Works" section. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poems

message: I have removed the following section from the article pending further research - the claim of Smart as author of In Defence is as-of-yet unsubstantiated (Masonic researchers claim it was written by someone else), his claimed Masonic membership is unverified (records should exist, and Rose posits a different explanation for Smart's knowledge, that being reading a Masonic expose), and Sherbo (the main proponent of the "Smart is a Freemason" claim) states in his article "Christopher Smart's Knowledge of Occult Literature" (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 233-241) in a footnote on p. 234 that he takes his Masonic references from Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, itself a tertiary and possibly fanciful source.  I am furthermore not convinced of the value of this in this biographical article, as it largely relates to only one of Smart's works, especially since this material is repeated in the article on the work, as is most of the material dealing with the works. MSJapan (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed... 

message: I have protected this article until 15:53 June 26 to allow for discussion of how to reach an acceptable compromise solution here. DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: As requested on WikiProject Children's Literature, I have checked this article for assessment and agree with the current rating of B class. I do not feel able to offer any points for improvement; you may wish to nominate this as a Good Article to recieve more detailed feedback. If you have any comments on this assessment, please leave them on my talk page. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: It reads: "Many critics have focused on the role of David as planner of Solomon's Temple and his possible role with the Freemasons.[140] Although it is not know for sure if Christopher was a Freemason or not, there is evidence suggesting that he was either part of the organization or had a strong knowledge of its belief system.[187] Based on personal admittance to contributing to A Defence of Freemasonry, contemporary verification of his participation in the volume and with Masonic meetings, there is enough to confirm "his participation in Masonic affairs."[188] Furthermore, there are accounts of Smart attending meetings at the Bell Tavern in Westminster.[188][189] The information available has led Marie Roberts to declare in her 1986 book British Poets and Secret Societies, "It has been universally accepted by scholars that Christopher Smart [...] was a Freemason yet no record of his membership has been traced."[190] However, in the notes to Chris Mounsey's 2001 book Christopher Smart: Clown of God, Marie Roberts' 1986 book is referred to as "an account of Smart's work which accepts his association with the Freemasons," but in Mounsey's view, "Since neither Smart's name nor his pseudonyms appear in the records of the Freemasons, it is highly unlikely he was ever one of their number."[191]"
I think that the sentence "Many critics have focused on the role of David as planner of Solomon's Temple and his possible role with the Freemasons." is a little misleading as an opening paragraph because there is little context. Are we talking about "David"'s possible role or "Christopher Smart"'s possible role with the Freemasons? The second sentence "Although it is not know for sure if Christopher was a Freemason or not, there is evidence suggesting that he was either part of the organization or had a strong knowledge of its belief system." is excellent, especially if it is actually a correct reading of the source by John Rose dated 2005. The third sentence is taken from a 1967 book written by Arthur Sherbo and should be attributed to him specifically with the year in which his opinion was written into the record. Sherbo is old scholarship and may not hold sway today. I find John Rose and Christopher Mounsey's opinions to be the most reliable because they are recent. That's just me. Can we discuss this a little? I'm suggesting moving the first sentence elsewhere, or explaining what it has to do with the debate about Christopher Smart's possible freemason membership. I'm also suggesting putting Arthur Sherbo's opinion into context by attributing his opinion to his 1967 book. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See - "Smart's A Song to David is an attempt to bridge poetry written by humans and Biblical poetry.[137] The Biblical David plays an important role in this poem just as he played an important role in Jubilate Agno[138]" The paragraph at Freemasonry is tied in to the above section on religion. The previous section has: "By focusing on David, Smart is able to tap into the "heavenly language."[139] Many critics have focused on the role of David as planner of Solomon's Temple and his possible role with the Freemasons.[140] However, the true life of the poem comes later when Christ is introduced as the major subject.[141]" Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry paragraph as it is in Oct 2009 

message: The introduction correctly identifies Smart's midwife nom-de-plume as Mrs. Mary Midnight. However, the pertinent section is headed "Mrs. Mary Midwife". Clearly that is incorrect, as can be seen from the facsimile title page. Also, the use of the word "role" in the introduction and of "running" in the pertinent section appears to me to make it sound as though The Midwife were a play, when in fact it was a magazine. I'm going to attempt to correct this bit of misleadingness. --Haruo (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrs. Mary Who? 

message: I came across Category:Opera libretto [sic] by Christopher Smart‎‎. Two major issues.
(A) The name is very obviously wrong in a number of ways:
* He wrote at least two of them, so at the very least it should be Category:Opera librettos by Christopher Smart‎ or Category:Opera libretti by Christopher Smart‎. (If he had only ever written one libretto, then a category would be inappropriate in the first place; hence the singular "libretto" is wrong, any way you cut it.)
* But even that would be wrong, as the standard title for libretti categories by author is Category:Libretti by <author's name> (such as :Category:Libretti by Eugène Scribe).  These are all sub-categories of :Category:Libretti by author, which is a sub-category of :Category:Opera libretti.  So, this one should be moved to :Category:Libretti by Christopher Smart and re-categorised.
(B) I found this at :Category:English poems, where I also find :Category:Poetry by Christopher Smart.  So, if these libretti are also considered poetry, then surely they should be a sub-category of Category:Poetry by Christopher Smart, rather than something completely separate from that.  
Any comments before I start fixing these problems?  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation issues