To hen, the one = "fair Una late fowle outraged" in Book II, canto ii, the
second line of stanza 18.
The global chicken would be present at any parliament of nature as a whole,
such as the one referred to, in Mut. Cantos "vii," on otherwise foul Arlo,
where Nature's epiphany is after that of medieval poets, though Chaucer
himself "In his Fowles parley durst not with it mel."
-- Jim N.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:25:47 -0500
anne prescott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I checked Harry's chicken book and it has a chapter on "The Global
> Chicken." Wonderful. Now to tie that to Spenser. Anne.
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:08 PM, James C. Nohrnberg wrote:
>
>> I dunno about The Chicken Book, but Henny Penny the Sky is Falling
>> is definitely about being on the inside of the cosmic egg.
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:58:24 -0800
>> Harry Berger Jr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> There you go! Cold off the press! But illustrated! My colleagues
>>> at UCSC scooped y'all:
>>> The Chicken Book by Page Smith and Charles Daniel (Paperback -
>>> April 27, 2000) -Illustrated
>>> Buy new: $24.95 $22.45
>>> 22 Used & new from $15.67
>>> In Stock
>>> (9)
>>> Books: See all 8,545 items
>>> On Feb 18, 2009, at 12:53 PM, James C. Nohrnberg wrote:
>>>> Re "What we really need is an epic on the Big Bang."
>>>>
>>>> Actually, one could argue that that epic has already been written
>>>> (or sung). See the following, from "The Keeping of Nahor" on
>>>> "These are the generations of" in Genesis:
>>>>
>>>> 'Typically, the "generations" are produced from a human
>>>> progenitor. This is not the case in the first instance, "These
>>>> are the generations of the heavens and earth." For the creation
>>>> is anything but a spontaneous natural generation, a genesis. The
>>>> Bible takes huge exception to the pagan creation myth of genesis,
>>>> where the congress of heaven and earth generates the gods, where
>>>> the gods generate monsters, and where the big bangs of rape,
>>>> castration, and ejaculation play such a role in the primeval
>>>> events. In the Bible, on the other hand, the miscegenous sons of
>>>> God who come into the daughters of men do not precipitate Nature,
>>>> but the Flood. The waters above and the waters below not only
>>>> merge two texts, but two levels of being that the creation in
>>>> fact distinguished. God did not originally breed the heavens and
>>>> earth, he segregated them. Thus the pagan or ontogenetic
>>>> creation myth is fossilized in the single expression here in
>>>> question. The heavens and the earth are actually the virtual
>>>> antithesis of the unity of the darkness on face of the deep
>>>> facing it--this last is an image not of coitus, but of
>>>> barrenness. Thus God's intervention in the barrenness of Sarah
>>>> has the most awesome precedent in God's original mercy to non-
>>>> entity.'
>>>>
>>>> And the following from International Milton Soc. meeting in
>>>> Pittsburgh a few years ago, paper on "Spatiality in Par. Lost":
>>>>
>>>> 'At the opening of Book VII Milton puts space very near God,
>>>> when, in an equivalent moment of pro-creation [that of the Son],
>>>> God is overheard saying to the angels "I am who fill /
>>>> Infinitude, nor vacuous the space, / Though I uncircumscribed
>>>> myself retire" (this being a Miltonic echoing of the proverbial
>>>> description of God as one who center is everywhere and whose
>>>> circumference is nowhere). Adam, again through Raphael's report,
>>>> also gets to see what this emptied infinitude might look like,
>>>> "the vast immeasurable abyss / Outrageous as a sea, dark,
>>>> wasteful, wild, / Up from the bottom turned by furious winds /
>>>> And surging waves, as mountains to assault / Heaven s highth, and
>>>> with the centre mix the pole." Bringing this mutinous mess to
>>>> heel is a scriptural act of God, insofar as the chaos in this
>>>> description is virtually Leviathanic, outrageous as a sea; but
>>>> in Paradise Lost (in Book II) the large remains of this welter
>>>> remain recognizably Timaeic (because of the elemental pyramids
>>>> of fire ) and Epicurean (because of the temporary adhesion of the
>>>> atoms). In more traditional accounts virtually all of this chaos
>>>> gets used up by the creation. Comparably, the same hexaemeral
>>>> tradition, from Ambrose to DuBartas, assimilates the confused
>>>> prime matter from the Timaeus to the biblical darkness and void
>>>> of Genesis 1, and likewise from the opening of the Metamorphoses
>>>> of Ovid, while reprehending the Epicurean hypothesis of a world
>>>> generated from chance encounters among primordia. Milton is
>>>> different, because his chaos survives his creation nearly
>>>> intact. Indeed, in Milton's cosmos is practically the biggest
>>>> thing around. It is a kind of cosmic egg in hatching Satan,
>>>> without the original broodhen, and it is reproduced in miniature
>>>> in hell as Pandemonium: a beehive with a gangplank, the latter
>>>> corresponding to the causeway subsequently engineered across
>>>> Chaos by Sin and Death.' -- Jim N.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:24:05 -0500
>>>> anne prescott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Oh that I were younger and had more time left! I would do a book
>>>>> on the chicken and literature--or "Why Do Chickens not Cross
>>>>> the Road to Parnassus?" Or "The Wings of the Chicken: A Sequel
>>>>> to Henry James." Indeed, we hear of cosmic eggs, but not of
>>>>> cosmic chickens, which I think is unfair to mothers. But
>>>>> seriously, folks . . . to be fair to Du Bartas, he's trying (I
>>>>> think) to exploit some gender ambiguity of the Hebrew words (Im
>>>>> told) at the start of Genesis-- what Milton uses, following Du
>>>>> Bartas, in having a brooding dove that can also impregnate. But
>>>>> this posting, before I leave for a conference on the also
>>>>> entertaining but non-epic John Donne, is to save you time by
>>>>> giving you the lines from Du Bartas for the next time you teach
>>>>> Milton. I might add that Milton gets to the beginning much
>>>>> faster than does Du Bartas, who goes through lots and lots of
>>>>> polemic and mulling things over before getting to the start of
>>>>> it all. Like Spenser, who of course praises the poet at the end
>>>>> of his Ruines of Rome, I really do enjoy Du Bartas (even his
>>>>> description of Adam before his rib-ectomy as "sweet hee-shee-
>>>>> coupled-one"), but literary tact was not his strong suit. In
>>>>> any case, Spenser, like Milton, would have read the following:
>>>>> So did Gods Spirit delight it selfe a space
>>>>> To move it selfe upon the floating Masse:
>>>>> No other care th'Almightie's mind possest
>>>>> (If care can enter in his sacred brest).
>>>>> Or, as a Henne that faine would hatch a brood,
>>>>> (Some of her owne, some of adoptive blood)
>>>>> Sits close thereon, and with her lively heat,
>>>>> Of yellow-white balls, doth lyve birds beget:
>>>>> Even in such sort seemed the Spirit Eternall
>>>>> To brood upon this Gulph: with care paternall
>>>>> Quickening the Parts, inspiring power in each,
>>>>> From so foule Lees, so fair a Wold to fetch. (In the ed.
>>>>> by Susan Snyder this is the First Week, First Day, ll. 319-330.)
>>>>> There follow lines on Nothing and All--so much more resonant, I
>>>>> think, after the introduction of the Zero shape/concept a while
>>>>> earlier.
>>>>> What we really need is an epic on the Big Bang. Anne.
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Hannibal Hamlin wrote:
>>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> James Nohrnberg
>>>> Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
>>>> Univ. of Virginia
>>>> P.O Box 400121
>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> James Nohrnberg
>> Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
>> Univ. of Virginia
>> P.O Box 400121
>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
[log in to unmask]
James Nohrnberg
Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
Univ. of Virginia
P.O Box 400121
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
|
