Talk:Aphra Behn

message: Aphra Behn was a very important woman in history, something I hope won't get lost in this article. Her novel Oroonoko has been rightly called one of the first anti-slavery works. It's available online and should be read. She was definitely countering a prejudice against Oroonoko's race. Her play The Rover has liveliness and depth. Readers would be interested in what was written of her at Westminster, and it's an honor, one she deserved, that she's there: "She was Mistress of all the pleasing Arts of conversation, but us'd 'em not to any but those who love Plaindealing." That "plaindealing" or honesty should be respected very much now. My source is the Duffy biography, which I value. Nov. 20, 2005 21:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Do please click on this link to Oroonoko, it's a Featured article (=identified as one of Wikipedia's best), written by one of our 18th-century specialists (User:Geogre), and much superior to the Aphra Behn article. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 22:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Bishonen! amphimacer 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize.  I've been so tardy in working on this article as to be unforgiveable.  Basically, Behn is one of the most difficult authors to reconstruct.  So little is known (especially since Duffy) and so many have an interest in molding her into contemporary clothing that we have our own desires as much as the obscurity of time to battle.  I would welcome anything from any quarter to make this present article better.  I should go ahead and state my own predilections for writing about Behn:  I'm one of those political readers.  I see every author of the Restoration and Augustan period as engaging in a rather high stakes bit of cultural warfare.  After all, the presses were new, the forms of literature were new, the audiences were new, and no one had been convinced that a novel was "only a novel" and that it wouldn't change the world.  Meanwhile, ideas were imbued with such power over lives that there were no innocent words in print.  Therefore, I'm apt to read Behn the way Todd does: as a partisan.  Calling her a Tory is technically accurate but somewhat misleading.  She was not reactionary but activist.  She was not in opposition to emergent capitalism but activist for a sort of idealism that we today find alien.  At least her public face was: the private woman has remained private after three centuries.  Geogre 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Geogre, I'm with you politically. If I read you correctly. Aphra Behn was for the monarchy and not against what we call capitalism; that's a hard subject for people to see accurately then or now, and I could say a lot which I won't. Then there is Behn's actual work and I hope I endeavor to know her through it--which is the real test of the scholar. I'm interested in what you say about an "idealism that we today find alien." As I looked at Oroonoko in particular, I saw a very courageous mind at work--at the end Behn describes Oroonoko being tortured, and it's unbearable, unflinching in honesty and I think this part could stand up to any cutting-edge or dark work of our time. But Behn's purpose is important, she's describing the ugliness of the torture so we'll feel it, and see Oroonoko's courage and nobility through it--he didn't give his torturers the satisfaction they wanted of seeing him break down. I want to read her last play 'The Widow Ranter'--I began it once in the library--and would like to see it performed. It's about one of the earliest revolts here, in the 'New World.' I read it was staged after she died and very badly, and I'm hoping its better than its reputation! Well, Wikipedia and you are encouraging me to continue my study of Aphra Behn, one of the most interesting people ever! Amphimacer 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Addition

message: No one owns words on Wikipedia, so I don't want to act like I have a monopoly on Behn truth, but this article is not only inaccurate, but it keeps getting worse rather than better.  I do plan to do a complete rewrite as soon as I finish the 2000 rev. of Janet Todd's The Secret Life of Aphra Behn, which is the most recent scholarly biography of her.  However, vast tracts of the present article disagrees not only with Todd, but also with Maureen Duffy, whose Passionate Shepherdess was the first truly scholarly biography of Behn's in the 20th c.  Instead of trying to give a miniature version of the article as I will rewrite it, I will establish the facts we do know and the untruths that have been exposed so far.
#Aphra Behn was probably born to a man named Bartholomew Johnson in Wye, probably in 1640, with a probable sister named Frances and brother named George.  Her mother was a distant relation of the Sidneys.  Her father was of no family.
#Behn probably worked as a copyist.
#Behn almost surely performed spy-work long before the 2nd Dutch War.  It is most likely that she was a go-between courier for the Royalist court in exile.
#She travelled to Suriname in 1663-4, most likely.  She might have been there as a mistress, but that's very unlikely.  She might have been there as a woman seeking a husband, but that's terribly unlikely.  What's most likely is that she was paired with another lady as a travelling companion.  There is no historical figure who is "deputy governor" of Suriname except William Byam.  There is no father, no sugar daddy, no one who can fill that role.
#There is no historical Oroonoko.  Scholars have searched night and day for hundreds of years for a likely African.  The name is an adaptation of "Oroondates," a Romance hero from novels Behn read, and an obvious homophone/allegory for the river Orinoco itself.
#There was no slave rising to match what is described in the novel Oroonoko. For more detailed proof and disproof, see Oroonoko, a featured article.
#After her time in Suriname, she is married, whether in Suriname or on ship home.  The likely Behn is a Johan Behn of Frankfurt, who was probably a slave trader and a Dutch go-between trader (a literal middleman).  He likely died during the plague year of 1665-6.
#She was sent to Holland to recruit a double agent.  One William Scot was a Puritan who had betrayed Suriname, and Behn was sent to recruit him to betray the Dutch.  She was partially successful, but not very.
#Behn went to live near the Temple Bar, where she met a great many playwrights.
#She appeared to get no pay at all from Charles II.  However, she did get her plays read and put on.  This, in fact, might have been payment-in-kind, which was common with Charles II.
#Her poetry is not indecent.  In fact, it was very fine, and it is the basis of her fame in the 18th century -- with admirers including Burns, Blake, and later Wordsworth and Coleridge.  It would be the basis of her reputation for the generation after her life.
#Her drama was very popular.  Only Dryden's plays were staged more often in the 1670's.
#She wrote another novel before Oroonoko, so it's not the first novel or the first novel by a woman in English.
#She was not the first female professional author in English.  She was the first professional woman dramatist, yes, and the first female professional poet and novelist, but women had earlier made their livings by writing cook books.
There are many more facts to come, with citations, but this should be enough to explain why there is a Disputed tag on the article as it stands. Geogre 03:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual dispute

message: I'm reading Janet Todd's 2000 The Secret Life of Aphra Behn now.  First, Duffy is valuable:  she did some of the hardcore scholarship (finding Effrey Johnson (aka Aphry/Aphra Johnson), finding Bartholomew Johnson (father), and Elizabeth Denham Johnson (mother)).  I'm taking notes & promise to whip the article into Featured Article shape as soon as I am done.  I'll also, of course, read Vita Sackville-West's stuff and skim other biographies of recent vintage to see what I can see.  Geogre 02:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading it, and I got all her material on Oroonoko out for my work on Oroonoko.  My problem is the agonizing pace of making a note on every significant fact and then, later, having to cut down all the facts to make it digestible.  Geogre 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promises, promises 

message: Sheesh.  She met Oroonoko, eh?  Really?  That's astonishing!  Of what extraction was he?  What historical figure is he based upon?  Being naive is no longer acceptable when writing about Aphra Behn, folks, and this article gets worse, rather than better, with time.  I'm going to have to raze a lot of what's here when I rewrite, and I just think I'll give notice now that, if you don't have citations to prove what you say, don't say it.  If you do have citations, provide them.  Aphra Behn was probably only in Suriname (the Surinam river, see Suriname) for a year or so, with half a year in transit both ways.  This suggests a mission, not a home. Geogre 21:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaven forefend 

message: I was doing some work on John Blow's Venus and Adonis (opera) and found this interesting tidbit in New Grove - 
:"though there is no record of the venue and the identity of the librettist remains unknown; the suggestion that, because of its feminist overtones, the poem might have been written by Aphra Behn, with whom Blow later collaborated on a play (The Lucky Chance), is intriguing but unproven."
I don't have any access to information about Aphra Behn, I'm just wondering if those who know more about her think it warrants inclusion. Makemi 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opera Libretto

message: I am a member of a scholarly Listserve which discusses the Restoration and eighteenth century, and we've been discussing the "value" of Wickpedia as a scholarly source.  I have sent them a reference to this article as an example of what serves as scholarship here.  I feel sure that Janet Todd would be extremely dismayed to see her "Secret Life" described as a scholarly biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.13.42 (talk • contribs).
:Oh, how wonderful.  Since I was last a member of C18-L, one must suppose that poles have been liberally distributed for backsides, if you believe that this article is either "what passes for scholarship" at "Wickipedia" (sic) or that your announcement is going to do anything except testify to your own vacuity.  Given the fact that the talk page contains liberal complaints that the article is not up to snuff, it will be fascinating to see what a powerful example it will be.  Further, if Ms. Todd is of the belief that her biography is unscholarly, then she shall have to do some explaining to the TLS among others.  Finally, if your comment is indicative of the tone deafness, ignorance, and blindness now typical of the listserver, I can only rejoice in having gone on to do something useful instead of posting there.  If you wish to see something more scholarly pertaining to the 18th century, you should look at one of our other articles.  Oh, and it would be generous of you to have the courage of your convictions and indicate your authorship (I recall C18-L being real name only, but perhaps that has changed, too).  You can "sign" by simply typing four tildes in a row.  Then we can see where your IP resolves.  I'm sure that it will show some place truly impressive, like Comcast Cable.  I know that the decision to cavil or to help is agonizing, but some of us choose the more difficult course.  Geogre 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of them could well rewrite the article.  That would be a good thing.  Again, though, this article is a disgrace and has been a disgrace for years.  The scholarly editors of Wikipedia pretty much haven't touched it (including me).  I keep meaning to, but I don't want to get into anything where the silly people of the Behn Society live.  The citation is due to a single fact at the outset that was lifted from the better Oroonoko article.  The only thing that I, for example, have done with this article is cut its original, even more deluded, text.  It used to be lifted from the accounts based on the bizarre Charles Gildon.  Further, Duffy and Todd are, in my opinion, scholarly biographies, although both contain speculation and both make assumptions.  Duffy is the one who did the leg work to demonstrate the likeliness of her being Aphra Johnson, and Todd unearthed all that stuff about what exactly Behn was doing in her spying years.  All the same, there is only one thing that a C18-L reader can do: either help the article or learn to read the talk pages, where they will see complaint after complaint about this article and our being too short-handed to get the work done.  Finally, they can realize that Wikipedia is wonderful, and it is awful, depending on the article: it is both, and it would be great if some of my fellow scholars got off of their dusty cushions and started helping.  Threatening is of no use.  Geogre 11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. (And you know that I will not forget the Gould edition...) Enjoy the marvellous summer. --Olaf Simons 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DISCUSSION OF WICKPEDIA ON SCHOLARLY LISTSERVE

message: It is good to see this woman get so much attention. I was surprised that she was not mentioned in Feminism, which i have now corrected. Now why are all the citations external? Mgoodyear 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This article still needs a lot of work.  Quotations like the following, for example: "She has since become a favourite among sexually liberated women, many of bisexual or lesbian orientation, who proclaim her as one of their most positive influences. [9]" (131.111.243.37 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't just need clean up.  It needs scourging.  I don't think any of our 18th century editors are working on the article.  For myself, I don't because of the amount of silliness aimed at Mrs. Behn by published critics, and I don't want to get into it.  Anyone else with training and access to a good library who wants to take it on would be doing a serious mitzveh.  Geogre 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It needs more than just a a little bit of clean up; the article is filled with opinions  is scant of citations and has some plain wrong facts. If I was not so busy at the moment I would rewrite the entire thing; I might be able to work on it in a couple months.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.224.128 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs to be cleaned up 

message: Then you better delete it from the 1000+ articles it's tagged to. For the record, Wikipedia:Citing sources recommends "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." So much for personal, it's an explicit Wikipedia style guide recommendaton. And this article is NOT internally consistent, using footnotes AND Harvard referencing in both the ==Early life== and ==Status among other writers throughout history== sections (and the Harvard refs aren't even consistent throughout). C'mon, go! (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dear!  An official recommendation?  Wow.  Well, everyone had better snap to it and get obedient, then.  Where would we be without the effort to have every article look exactly like every other one?  That would be anarchy!  We need to get rid of the idea that anyone can edit here.  Only the obedient should edit.  The rest should have tags put up on their articles marking them as the horrid output of the common rabble who have not learned to comply yet.  Geogre (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '"The tag is judgmental, personal, and therefore subject to the next person saying, "No, it isn't."'[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aphra_Behn&diff=190384128&oldid=190365473] 

message: Sure Pope was a precocious child, but considering that hewa s (at most) a year old when Behn died, I think the statement that he was a major critic of hers needs to be better qualified. Specifically, it should say in what works he criticized her, and it should be made clearer that these criticisms took place after her death.  (138.16.72.11 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you specify where it's said?  I still refuse to have anything to do with editing this article, but Pope was a critic of hers, after she was quite dead.  In fact, Pope is important in the beginning of the dismissal of her.  There is evidence that Behn was enjoyed as late as Blake, and she was really done in by the 19th c. critics more than the Augustans, but Pope's important as the first major voice to make the "dirty girl" charge and have it stick.  Please go ahead and make the change, if you see where it should be done; you needn't wait for anyone else.  Geogre (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope and Behn 

message: Despite the observations above made over a period of five years that this article is not up to standard, it is still an embarrassment. It reads like a mass up of undergraduate work - some useful stealing and a lot of original idiocy. Tsinfandel (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed... I've tried to give it a larger overhaul though now it needs some smoothing out and there are still a number of issues remaining. MichelCastagne (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Substandard

message: I went ahead and axed the "Bibliography" section, which was entirely opinion-based, poorly-written, disconnected to the point of incoherence, and not about bibliography at all. I'm only a novice editor, but I think having a blank space is probably better than a string of gibberish?
24.215.233.193 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Bibliography" section  

message: The article as it stands claims that Behn was born July 10, 1640, in Wye, but baptized in December.  This is incorrect; it bizarrely confuses and muddles two different and mutually incompatible scholarly identifications of Behn's origins.  To sort it out briefly, several decades ago scholars discovered a baptismal (not birth) record of a girl named Afara Amis in Wye dated 7/10/1640 that was for a while considered to be the true Behn.  Later, however, a baptism record dated December 14, 1640, in Hambledon for "Eaffry Johnson" was discovered that is now, by scholarly consensus, considered the real Behn, since the details match up better with Anne Finch's statements (maiden name Johnson, father was a barber, etc.).  See, for example, Janet Todd's biography The Secret Life of Aphra Behn.  I'm going to make the changes that seem to be required. 108.249.88.145 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...*On a somewhat related topic, I guess and by the way, putting "?" next to 1640 when it's known that she was baptised in 1640 seems to suggest a probably undeserved amount/level of doubt (there's always some doubt with empirical evidence (especially, philosophically speaking, when it's passed through many hands twixt source and reader, but away that tangent)... the question is the acceptable level before it reaches that "?" level of general dubiety :) ) Usually baptism occurred within a month of birth, no? So it wouldn't be the year that was doubtful, though the month and day might be (so the ? should be moved, just suggesting...) 2604:6000:B484:AF00:AD43:E6A7:103B:1B1C (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks IP. I've changed the article to reflect this. PS. Having an account (they're free! ;D) makes it easier to discuss, and lets other editors notify you when they reply. --Xover (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behn's birth 

message: Having read the comments here on the talk page, I flinch at the basicness of my edits to the article, but it seemed in little better shape in April 2013 than it was in July 2006. It was mostly uncited with seemingly strong POV. I have added references and tried at least to get some coherence to the narrative of her life. No doubt, as Geogre says, it would be best to start again using the biographies. A significant section of the article would, it seems, have to be given to the historiography of source texts and researchers - which biographers and scholars say what, where they vary, where they agree, how evidence was discovered. It would great to bring Behn to GA or FA, with scholarly rigour, as she, no doubt, deserves. I hope the current version of the article is a temporary stop gap. Span (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added more, with some cites from The Secret Life of Aphra Behn by Todd. I have not come across plaudits from Burns, Blake  Wordsworth and Coleridge as mentioned above. Their perspectives would be good to add. In regard to Behn's birth (discussed above) there are any number of theories (and little evidence). I have added an assortment of strong sources and their cites so that readers can investigate each further. Span (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: While I think Todd's biography of Behn is the most reliable source for information about Behn's life, I think this entry relies too heavily on her scholarship—especially when it comes to the discussion of Oroonoko. Other scholars do see the text as "progressive" in its treatment of gender and race and in its possible critique of at least some dimensions of the slave trade. Perhaps the paragraph on Behn's "anti-progressive" views as they surface in Oroonoko should take into account other scholarly views on this matter? 
Also, while I am intrigued by the claim that "male to male love" appears in Behn's writing (which I've altered to "same-sex love between men," as I think it is less clunky), I would like to see an example or a citation. I've not read everything she wrote; perhaps this is a reference to Love-Letters Between a Noble-Man and His Sister, which, alas, I haven't yet read, but I can't be sure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptWhiffle (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many other sources given in the article. Todd's critique of Oroonoko is clearly stated as hers, not a general interpretation. Other critiques would be great to add. Regarding same-sex love, the source given goes into some detail, though doesn't give poetic examples. Span (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-reliance on Todd? / same-sex desire between men 

message: I have read through the Talk on this page ranging over nearly a decade, and since 1) the page is still in sad shape and 2) it doesn't seem to getting any attention at the moment, I'd like to propose an overhaul.  There is much solid work on Behn that can offer a Wikipedia reader useful information on her writings and their reception over the years.  The biography seems to have become a quagmire.  I wish to rewrite the general introduction to the article to emphasize her major status as a British author and remove extraneous items such as being called a member of the triumverate of wit.  In the upcoming weeks, I will then be using the reliable bibliography by Mary Ann O'Donnell (2nd edition 2004) and the expert write up on Behn in Orlando: Women's Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present.  If anyone would like to help me plan out a way to revise the whole article, I am very happy to learn from and with you. LLRungegordon (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the introduction to be more general and indicate Behn's significance.  I am having difficulty with the references.  Using visual editor, I thought the references would be assigned to the reference section, but they are appearing below the text that I edited.  How do I fix this <<help>>? LLRungegordon (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I am going to add some support citations for the general opening, and then begin to add information on the textual history and literary production, using the ODNB article on Behn, the information from Orlando: Women's Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the End, and Aphra Behn: An Annotated Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources by Mary Ann O'Donnell (second edition 2004)LLRungegordon (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, be wp:BOLD and edit. Don't worry too much about the mechanics of citations, just so long as you make it clear what source supports a statement, others can tidy up the cite formats. In general, we avoid using primary sources, except where reliable secondary sources have shown them to have particularl significance. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Attention to the Behn page 

message: The article notes Behn's mission to establish intimacy with William Scot. The link to the wikipedia article on Scot lists him as dying in the 1243, centuries before Behn. Is there an error? 
Also, there is a witty play about Aphra Behn by Liz Duffy Adams entitled "Or," that may be worth citing. A description of the play is at http://www.dramatists.com/cgi-bin/db/single.asp?key=4203
Cmalumphy (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Scot - Is there an error with the link; Also play about Behn ("Or," by Liz Duffy Adams 

message: #metoo MinorProphet (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on previous discussions 

message: Are these categories appropriate?
LGBT writers from England, LGBT dramatists and playwrights, LGBT poets, 17th-century women scientists, and 17th-century LGBT people
I don't see anything in the article to support her being LGBT (versus being of interest in LGBT studies), nor was she a scientist (despite translating some science books). If there are no objections, I suggest these should be removed. Fences&Windows 19:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the LGBT categories, as they suggest that Behn herself was LGBT.--Peabodybore (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable categories 

message: Under Published Works in the first line, changed 'reputably' to 'reputedly' and made plural 'Englishwomen' the singular 'Englishwoman'. 
The sense of the sentence and the rest of the article clearly suggests that the text needs to indicate that Behn is believed to have been/widely considered to have been/tentatively recorded as, the first English woman to earn a living as writer ['reputedly' or by reputation] rather than that she did so and this enhanced her reputation or was considered to be conformist to social norms ['reputably'] as the text indicates she was more controversial than that. I take this to be a minor correction in usage/word choice.
Singular "Englishwoman" matches the rest of the sentence as written. Depending on what if anything we know about other potentially paid female writers of this period, an alternative would be "among the first Englishwomen" using the plural. 
Request any future editors making changes of this type to this article to use this section. This talk page already has a lot of section headings.Random noter (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor stylistic/grammar/syntax/language changes 

message: Did Aphra Behn have any children? If not, how did she avoid having any, if she was a libertine, and later married? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offspring