 |
 |
How about "Is Spenser Prettier Than Milton"? (No contest, of course, with Shakespeare!) On 2/17/09, Jenn Lewin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I hope, then, that Hannibal will write: "Spenser: Not Just a Pretty Face"! > > --jenn lewin > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:00 PM, SIDNEY-SPENSER automatic digest > system <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > There is 1 message totalling 290 lines in this issue. > > > > Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Was Spenser "fantastic rather than imaginative"? > > > > If only Anne will write Killing the Chicken, I can die a happy woman. If > Anne finds that title too sensationalist, she could go with Milton and > Poultry. Anne, if you need inspiration, I'll tell you where you can find a > Poultry Science building in whose soaring glass lobby is a life-sized bronze > statue of a tree stump on which a magnificent bronze chicken > stands. Embedded in the tree stump—and I'm not making this up—is a bronze > axe. We've always known that Milton had an affinity with the sciences. > > > > > > > > Dot > > > > > > > > From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hannibal Hamlin > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:20 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Was Spenser "fantastic rather than imaginative"? > > > > > > > > This is almost certainly true. In accounts of James Murray and the > original NED/OED project, it's clear that he relied on an international > network of amateur reader/contributors (including the madman so wonderfully > described in The Madman and the Professor). Consider what these contributors > are likely to have had access to -- not, surely, obscure pamphlets and rare > books found only in a few libraries in the world, but "big name authors," or > at least those available in nineteenth century editions. > > > > > > > > By the way, would anyone like to join me in encouraging Anne to write the > book on Milton's genius, Killing the Chicken? > > > > Hannibal > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Peter C. Herman <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > Ian Lancashire's work on early modern lexicography has also done much to > challenge the view that Shakespeare was continually coining new words. If > Shakespeare were as neoteric as the OED would have us believe, he would not > have been understood by the groundlings. The OED does seem to have a bias > in allocating first instances of words and senses to big name authors. > > > > > > > > I wonder if that might be in part because the original lexicographers had > to rely on memory and paper rather than databases, thus making it likelier > that they would refer to "big name authors" rather than an obscure pamphlet > from 1522 or 1564? I mean, we have tools at our disposal that, obviously, > they did not, making it a great deal easier to trace linguistic origins. > > > > pch > > > > John Leonard > > > > > > -- > > Hannibal Hamlin > > Associate Professor of English > > The Ohio State University > > Burkhardt Fellow, > > The Folger Shakespeare Library > > 201 East Capitol Street SE > > Washington, DC 20003 > > [log in to unmask] > > [log in to unmask] > > > -- Hannibal Hamlin Associate Professor of English The Ohio State University Burkhardt Fellow, The Folger Shakespeare Library 201 East Capitol Street SE Washington, DC 20003 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]