Talk:Ludvig Holberg

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

Translation[edit]

The version I am replacing was not accurate or structured. I am translating the danish version to english. This is a major rewrite of the article. --OrbitOne 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job so far. Don't forget to translate all the remaining danish to English, even the quotes. pschemp | talk 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, don't worry. Just takes time to do it. --OrbitOne 09:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do[edit]

  • Instead of having Danish quotes and English footnotes to those quotes, how about English translations and Danish quotes foot notes to those notes. Done. Bishonen | ノート 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Translate names of his stage plays, novels, ect.

I'm currently translating some names of plays. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I've tried to convey the meaning, more than a snappy title that would have been used in real life. HaakonKL 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't quite agree with the translation of "Adskillige store Helte og berømmelige Mænds sammenlignede Historier", 1739–53 translated into: "(Eng. Several Great Heroes and Famous Men's Compared Histories)". It's not about several heroes, shouldn't it be more in the direction of (severly) great heroes? Batman000 11:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translation seems ok to me. I did spot a typo in the Danish text and changed it to read "Adskillige store Heltes og berømmelige Mænds sammenlignede Historier" with the translation "Several Great Heroes' and Famous Men's Compared Histories" (Helte -> Heltes and Heroes -> Heroes'), though. I don't remember having seen "adskillige" used to mean "severely", and as far as I know it is about several compared histories, with circa 12 comparisons between a total of twice as many people. But I might be wrong. Hemmingsen 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Writing"[edit]

I've re-christened this section "Writings" and emended it, based on the the Norwegian and Danish articles. For instance, while the Danish article does make the same (rather surprising) claim as here, that the three periods of Holberg's literary output are given in "no particular order", that isn't so, as is clear from the much more detailed Norwegian article: he wrote first history, then poetry and comedies, and then philosophy, all of course with some overlap. The claim that he wrote "poetical raptures" and is famous for them seems to be a misunderstanding: the statement in the no/da articles is that he produced his comedies in a long and exhausting "raptus" of remarkable productivity. "Rapture" isn't the best word here. So, I've changed the section a bit, but I also hope there are plans for fleshing it out. It's the comedies that Holberg is famous for today, so it seems a pity that they're polished off in a few sentences. My rewrite is merely a stopgap. I'm also sure that the three periods and their overlaps can be described more precisely, by someone knowledgeable, than with the rather crude chronology I've provided. Bishonen | ノート 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. :) --OrbitOne 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a suggstion, shouldn't we translate the danish titles into english, so they can have an idea as to what he wrote about? Also, I suggest moving Niels Klims subterranean journey into science fiction, since it was a sci-fi novel. (wasn't it one of the first in the world?) HaakonKL 14:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dano-Norwegian[edit]

Wouldn't Dano-Norwegian be a more correct Nationality for him, rather than Danish-Norwegian? Or am I being anal? --Eivindt@c 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word cannot be used to describe the man, because it is a language and not a nationality. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dano-Norwegian (disambiguation) it can:
The adjective and derived noun Dano-Norwegian means "Danish and Norwegian". It can have two related meanings:
  1. It can refer to the former (1536-1814) kingdom of Denmark-Norway or its people; or by extension to anything relating to both of its two titular composite countries, Denmark and Norway
  2. It can refer to the Dano-Norwegian language, formerly a Norwegian variant of the Danish language and predecessor of the Bokmål variant of the modern Norwegian language. (Cf. Gøtudanskt)

--Eivindt@c 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

  • Holberg's works about natural law and common law were read widely by many Danish law students over two hundred years, from 1736 to 1936.

What was significant about 1936? What happened then to stop students reading his texts? Does "over 200 years" means "throughout that period of time" or "longer than 200 years"? It's a little ambiguous. JackofOz 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nationality[edit]

Holberg was not Dano-Norwegian or Norwegian-Danish. Holberg was born and raised in Norway and studied in Denmark because the Danish kings neglected Norway and thus Norway had no universities of its own. The fact that Holberg was 'founder of modern Danish literature' is irelevant to his nationality. Holberg was 100% Norwegian. Nastykermit (talk)

How about something like; "Ludvig Holberg was a Norwegian writer and playwright born in Bergen during the time of the Dano-Norwegian double monarchy, and spent most of his adult life in Denmark. He is considered the founder of modern Danish literature."? I think that is a neutral description. -- Nidator T / C 12:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty good. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds fine to me as well. Hemmingsen 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the Dano-Norwegian discussion above the correct term for the citizenship of Ludvig Holberg was Dano-Norwegian, as he was a citizen born in Norway at the time of the Danish-Norwegian doublemonarchy. This is a discussion that frequently comes up concerning Holbergs origins, and will probably never end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I don't have any problems with Nidator's proposal is that our modern concept of nationality doesn't really apply to a 1700s context. What does apply is ethnicity (and Norwegian seems to be rather more accurate than Dano-Norwegian for this), place of birth and place of residence and those three are clearly specified in his version. I can think of one other metric, we could go by, and that is self-identification, but unfortunately, I don't know of any text where he describes himself as either Norwegian or Danish-Norwegian or whatever. Do any of you?
I see only two potential problems with describing him as Norwegian: that it might lead readers unfamiliar with Scandinavian history and languages to think he would have been perceived as a foreigner in Denmark or that he was writing in a language foreign to him. The first is currently dealt with by mentioning the double-monarchy and the second wasn't really dealt with in the previous version of the lead section anyway.
Another point is that if being Norwegian or Danish at the time of the double-monarchy is enough to make that person Dano-Norwegian then we should apply that description to all Danes and Norwegians of that period including Danes with no connection to Norway and Norwegians with no connection to Denmark, and we aren't currently doing that. Hemmingsen 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I agree with the fact that the modern concept of nationality doesn't apply here. Which is why i preferred the legal term of Dano-Norwegian, but as you say it does get explained to some extent further in the text i guess i does not matter as such. Concerning how Ludvig Holberg would have termed himself I can only repeat a few of the arguments that Danish literary critic Kai Friis Møller used, when he was involved in the same argument with Norwegian scholars as far back as 1919 (Kai Friis Møller - Udvalgte Essays 1915-1960, p. 101-107). Fellow Norwegian-born naval hero Peter Vessel is termed "Nordic" in "Introduction til de europæiske Rigers Historie", In the three epistles usually termed his Autobiographical Letters, he calls the Norwegian Michael Røg a countryman, but he does the same with the Dane in Genua that helps him out financially. He calls his "History of Denmark" a history of "our people", and his latin self-defense against the historian Hojer "a []written defense of the fathercountry (fædrelandet)", he also indiscriminately uses this term of both Norway and Denmark throughout his writings. I have not mentioned all the references that Møller mentions where emotional terms might reveal his thoughts on the matter, only instances where the actual terms involved are used. I think that this shows that Holberg was and did not consider himself to be a "100% Norwegian", but was in fact a citizen of the twin-kingdom Denmark-Norway, and hence the Dano-Norwegian term is the most fitting. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding self-identification, I found an article on a Danish literature website that says that he used the Latin signature "Ludovicus Holbergius Norvegus", which would seem to imply that he viewed himself as Norwegian.[1] -- Nidator T / C 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on both the Norwegian and the Danish wikipedias seems to be the term "Norwegian-Danish". It doesnt transfer as well to English, but I suspect the main beef the Norwegians would have with "Dano-Norwegian" is that Dansih precedes Norwegian, when, according to his place of birth, Norwegian should come first. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is concluded that the current version is unacceptable, then there is a way to get around the whole issue. The article could start with; " Ludvig Holberg (December 3, 1684 – January 28, 1754) was a writer and playwright born in Bergen, Norway during the time of the Dano-Norwegian double monarchy, and spent most of his adult life in Denmark. He is considered the founder of modern Danish literature..." -- Nidator T / C 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that solution. It seems like a good way of getting around the whole discussion of nationality without compromising any facts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that statement. Hemmingsen 16:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a consensus to me, so I've implemented that proposal. Hemmingsen 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hopefully this is a lasting solution. -- Nidator T / C 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the section where he describes the faults of the Danish people in his Description of Denmark and Norway he identifies himself as Norwegian. "Jeg undtager fra denne fejl end ikke mine egne landsmænd de Norske [...]". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.114.228 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Oct. 2014[edit]

Hi,

I removed the word "humorous" re. the cited example of his science work; here: a memorandum on the then prevailing cattle disease. I had a glance at this memorandum (http://bjoerna.net/holberg/Kvaegsyge.htm) and there doesn't seem to be anything humorous about it. (Unless it's funny that he didn't sequence genomes, etc.)

I also changed the translation of "Morals Kierne eller Introduction til Naturens og Folke-Rettens Kundskab" from some gibberish about the Common Man to "The Core of Morality or Introduction to Natural and International Law".

T2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:BC (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image proposal[edit]

Portrait by Jorgen Roed from Wikimedia commons, used on the Danish article.

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I found this painting of Holberg in full color and thought it might be a better infobox image. But at the same time I quite like the black and white version. Are there any guidelines for what image is preferable or is it just down to taste? Best Regards, InsaneHacker (🗪) 07:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ludvig Holberg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fable of the bees[edit]

The Wikipedia article on B. Mandeville's Fable of the Bees has a whole paragraph on Holberg's response to that influential book. Shouldn't the Holberg article also tell of his response? Kdammers (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finances[edit]

As a user passing through, I just wanted to flag that the "Finances" section doesn't seem like it has a place in a Wikipedia article - there's no sense from it that he was particularly unusual in his choices (in a way relevant to his biography or work), or made a particular contribution to economic theory. 2001:9E8:81A:8A00:F424:4003:2F3:D0E7 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludvig_Holberg&oldid=1207612819"