Ray Saintonge wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
The article you posted seemed to
take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know"
that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that
being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can
be described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early
teenage years. The article was on the first poetry anthology
published in English, and the question I would have is more about
general relevance of content. Just one statement: the first edition
had many poems containing religious commentary that were taken out in
later editions. OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557,
the year before Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and
different questions, not just "how do we know that?" which can
probably be established by putting two books side by side. (This is
about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
There is an unfortunate tendency for current day editors to view the
history of past centuries in a more compressed manner than warranted.
The article in question includes the sentence: "It is generally
included with Elizabethan era literature even if it was, in fact,
published in 1557, a year before Elizabeth I took the throne." That
doesn't mention Mary at all. It ignores the effect of the less than
Catholic Elizabeth's rule in comparison to that of her sister.
Well, quite, except for ... everything. I'm certainly going to be sorry
I brought this all up. Tottel apparently marketed his book on the
strength of contributions by [[Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey]], executed
in 1547 by Henry VIII about two weeks before he died. Our article about
Surrey manages to mention that he was a poet and to say nothing at all
about his poetry. Now - apparently - Surrey was a worse poet than Wyatt,
but more of a draw so got star billing in the Miscellany (publishers
haven't changed a bit in 450 years). Mary Tudor thought what about the
allegation that Surrey was going to usurp the throne from Edward VI, the
reason he was beheaded? Edward was the one who was really
less-than-Catholic. Was Surrey rehabilitated under Mary? Seems quite
possible given the Howards' place generally on the religious question..
Yes, I suppose I'd prefer to be worrying about points I made myself,
rather than brought up by pesky college kids.
Charles