Thanks everybody for your fantastic help -my brain is reeling spinning
sparking!-I have passed it all on to my partner Janet
Cheers Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Stephen Vincent
Sent: 18 March 2010 23:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new historical criticism-help!
I like all the detail here, Robin. Somehow scholarship appears to be a
parody o f 'original sin.' Then we got all the way back to the original
apple - or its remains - to discover and reveal what was both wrought as
well as twisted by some original scholar quoi 'warm'.
I like, for example, recent development is photography shows where curator's
expand the contextual focus. No longer the making an iconic fetish of one
photograph but, alternatively, putting the photograph among others in their
original historical context, as well as in correspondence with photographs
of later and earlier generations. Instead of 'white cube' religion, we get
another another kind of closer to the ground richness.
Eliot criticism versus William Carlos Williams - not an entirely fair
opposition, but close.
Stephen V
http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
--- On Thu, 3/18/10, Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: new historical criticism-help!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 1:54 PM
> ---and most often simply parroting what's been written without
> checking the facts.
The worst example of this in the field of cant studies is the (almost
universal) description of the work of Robert Copland, author of _The Highway
to the Spittal House_ in 1530. Copland is described, again and again, as
writing doggerel, a description probably initiated by J.S.Farmer in _Musa
Pedestris_ and limply repeated thereafter.
The joke behind this, other than one suspects that not everyone who accuses
Copland of writing doggerel actually read him, is that Farmer not only
prints a quite badly transcribed text of Copland (taken from Hazlitt the
Younger) but accuses Dekker, who quotes Copland in _Lanthorne and
Candlelight_ in 1608, of getting Copland's text wrong when it's Dekker and
not Farmer who provides the correct text of the passage in question!
Julie Coleman naturally enough gets the text right, being a quite incredibly
meticulous scholar, but she doesn't actually challenge Farmer's
characterisation. Equally, I think, unlike many, she doesn't repeat it.
(Fairly enough -- her concern was with the glossaries in the texts she was
working with rather than the texts themselves which might accompany the
glosses.)
But yeah, repeating a mistake because it's too much trouble to check the
original source seems to be endemic in all too many areas of scholarship.
:-(
Robin
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2754 - Release Date: 03/18/10
07:33:00
|