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. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
