Comments | angevin2: neither very lively nor very enlightened

angevin2

neither very lively nor very enlightened

Oct 01, 2006 23:29

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 ( Read more... )

richard ii, historiography

Comments 6

writerwench October 2 2006, 09:21:48 UTC

Does 17C count as Renaissance? or is it style rather than date?
I rather like all those ranting wads of iambic pentameter that poured out of the 1600s. They certainly didn't mince their words.

angevin2 October 2 2006, 18:35:29 UTC

Oh, it counts as Renaissance as far as I'm concerned. It's just that my dissertation is concerned with historiographical trends and anxieties in the 1590s, and a 1649 text is obviously going to have different concerns. I'm totally going to read it anyway, though. ;)

melissa_mifeng October 2 2006, 13:52:52 UTC

*waits patiently to be bored with incessant prattle for the next three weeks*

angevin2 October 2 2006, 18:37:18 UTC

I shall be happy to oblige. ;)

lnhammer October 2 2006, 14:33:06 UTC

I was about to ask if he really was a Son of Ben, but then realized he almost certainly couldn't be a Son of Donne, not and keep it up for 7000 lines. I wonder how influenced he was by Quarrels and the other Biblical epic writers?

Never heard of him before now.

---L.

angevin2 October 2 2006, 18:36:54 UTC

No, I hadn't either. It seems like his other major work was a commentary on Ecclesiasticus, or somesuch, so he may well have been influenced. I'm definitely looking forward to checking it out -- there is a copy in the Wash U library, so I'm going to head over there this afternoon. :)