Talk:Diggers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is listed on the bounty board
Sherurcij has pledged to make a donation of $10 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status. |
 Archives |
|||
|
Contents |
[edit] True Levellers
- see Talk:Diggers (True Levellers)/Archive 1#True Levellers for the previous discussion on this.
Apart from the title of the pamphlet The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D Where else does Winstanley use the term "True Levellers"? He does not use the phrase anywhere else in the article. Another way or reading this is that the title (which is re-inforced by the fonts used in the printing) says "The true standard advanced by the Levellers" in which case he was not calling the Diggers "True Levellers" but is advancing ideas in this pamphlet which (all) Levellers could use to obtain their on objectives of a more egalitarian society. Philip Baird Shearer 18:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone name another pamphlet, or any other source anywhere else, where Winstanley used the phrase "True Levellers" apart from in the title of the pamphlet "The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D"? In that pamphlet the phrase only appears in the title, so were else did Winstanley use the phrase? In Archive 1 it was agreed that he and other Diggers, used term "Diggers" (See "Letter Taken at Wellingborough" -1650). I would like to source Wistanley's use of the term "True Levellers" somewhere else than in one ambigious title if we are going to use in Wikipedia articles. Philip Baird Shearer 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no way The True Levellers Standard advanced can be read in the way suggested above - and no scholar has done so except the writer above. The title on the original (British Library Thomason Tract E552:5) reads as the footnoted link as The True Levellers Standard ADVANCED:OR, The State of Community opened and presented to the Sons of Men. There is no ambiguity from the use of fonts. To make this read 'The true standard advanced by the Levellers' is to commit substantial violence to the text and is just simply untenable on a cursory reading of the tract.
I think it is correct that Winstanley never uses the phrase True Levellers again. Indeed the title page to the TLSA seems to be a last minute decision tacked onto the tract which is called 'A declaration to the powers of England...'
Dr V 21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It is possible that a genitive ' has been omitted in the word Levellers. If this is the case the title could read 'The True Leveller's Standard Advanced'. The True Leveller being Jesus Christ. Abiezar Coppe at roughly the same time called Christ 'The Great Leveller'.
Elliot Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.248.192 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1650
What happened after 1650? The article leaves me hanging. Sam Spade 22:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Captain William Thompson
I am unsure what the relevance of William Thompson is to the Wellingborough Diggers. As I have filled in verifiable details of this colonies' history I think the reference to William Thompson should be deleted. Dr V 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UCT)
- Now that you have done the stirling work you have on this section, I think mention of Thompson should be moved near to the bottom of the section and not given the prominence it previously was. That he was killed near the Diggers encampment might be a coincidence, but presumably he was fleeing to somewhere after his failed Leveller mutiny. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Frances Drake
Is it appropriate to include who someone isn't in wikipedia? It doesn't seem quite right, but I felt that it was less confusing to specify. — vijay (Talk) 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biblical quotes
The article refers to the Book of Acts (in a related article it mentions Acts 2:44-45, detailing how the early Christians held all their property in common). Unfortunately, I think there is not one mention of the word "dig" in the Book of Acts!
Looking at the range of uses of "dig" in the Bible, my guess is that the relevant mention might be from Ezekiel 12,
2. Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
3. Therefore, thou son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; and thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight: it may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house.
4. Then shalt thou bring forth thy stuff by day in their sight, as stuff for removing: and thou shalt go forth at even in their sight, as they that go forth into captivity.
5. Dig thou through the wall in their sight, and carry out thereby.
6. In their sight shalt thou bear it upon thy shoulders, and carry it forth in the twilight: thou shalt cover thy face, that thou see not the ground: for I have set thee for a sign unto the house of Israel.
7. And I did so as I was commanded: I brought forth my stuff by day, as stuff for captivity, and in the even I digged through the wall with mine hand; I brought it forth in the twilight, and I bare it upon my shoulder in their sight.
But is there evidence for this? 204.186.19.105 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The reference is not to "diggers" -- that was a initially a derogatory label given to them by their opponents -- but to "True Levellers". You will find the line referenced in their manifesto The True Levellers Standard Advanced. The sentence in the Standard Advanced is "And when the Son of man, was gone from the Apostles, his Spirit descended upon the Apostles and Brethren, as they were waiting at Jerusalem; and the Rich men sold their Possessions and gave part to the Poor; and no man said, That ought that he possessed was his own, for they had all things Common, Act. 4. 32." The last phrase is taken from the King James Bible: Acts 4.32 "neither said any of them that ought that he possessed was his own, for they had all things Common".
- The Wikipedia article on Acts of the Apostles has in the contents section "Everything is shared (4:32-37)" that links to Discourse on ostentation#Materialism.
- I hope this information helps :-) BTW you wrote "in a related article ..." which related article? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
