neither very lively nor very enlightened
So I was perusing the OED just now to figure out if I had the meaning of a line in The Civil Wars right, and while doing so made the discovery that there was, in fact, another Renaissance poet named Daniel who wrote historical poetry: this one a 17th-century Royalist (I think? I saw another reference to the poem as puritan. Hrm) poet named George Daniel (probably no relation to Samuel), whose Trinarchodia is a 7000-line verse chronicle on the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V, and I feel, consequently, that I must read it. What little information I could find consisted mostly of a review of an edition of Daniel's poetry published in the South Atlantic Bulletin in 1959, the theme of which was mainly "George Daniel was a mediocre poet and not a very interesting person, but I guess it's okay that there's a new edition out in case it's useful to somebody, even though it's boring."
To me, of course, this mostly indicates that I will love it and that Trinarchodia, like so much of the obscure Renaissance poetry I'm always on about, is probably totally on crack. Besides, I want to see how a wannabe Son of Ben writing in 1649 talks about Richard II. I mean, it's too late for the diss, which focuses specifically on issues of the 1590s, but...well, you know how I am.
So of course I dash over to EEBO to find it, and it ISN'T THERE.
*stamps feet*
I shall have to check out the library and see if there are any ancient smelly editions in unreadable typefaces about (this is the form these things usually take), because I totally want to read it, and then bore everybody with incessant prattle about it for the next three weeks. Besides, I can probably at least mention it in the diss, so it TOTALLY counts as research.
(I don't suppose any of you guys know it? I had never heard of it before a half-hour ago...)
To me, of course, this mostly indicates that I will love it and that Trinarchodia, like so much of the obscure Renaissance poetry I'm always on about, is probably totally on crack. Besides, I want to see how a wannabe Son of Ben writing in 1649 talks about Richard II. I mean, it's too late for the diss, which focuses specifically on issues of the 1590s, but...well, you know how I am.
So of course I dash over to EEBO to find it, and it ISN'T THERE.
*stamps feet*
I shall have to check out the library and see if there are any ancient smelly editions in unreadable typefaces about (this is the form these things usually take), because I totally want to read it, and then bore everybody with incessant prattle about it for the next three weeks. Besides, I can probably at least mention it in the diss, so it TOTALLY counts as research.
(I don't suppose any of you guys know it? I had never heard of it before a half-hour ago...)