[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

What evidence is there that N. is even reading our responses to N. (or that N. has any interest in reading anything, including the plays or poems of Shakespeare)? What purpose is there in disputing with him, rather than continuing our discussion?

Mark's answer is also my answer, and echoes a comment I made a few days (or pages) ago: this thread isn't about N., and never was. Even if he (?) had a post that inspired me to create it, it's the dogmatic idea -- that there is ONE greatest and no one can ever be better, so it's not worth even trying -- that has given this thread its life. Mark's "catalyst" comment is almost literally true, because a catalyst itself doesn't change, even as it causes a reaction around it. N. doesn't seem to be changing at all, but this thread has been a joy to read and contribute to as it has evolved.

Originally Posted by Carl

Shaun can correct me on this, but I read somewhere that there’s no evidence Shakespeare knew Homer.

Well...Troilus and Cressida is an account of events in the Iliad, though through the lens of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (when I was a Ph.D. student, I actually wrote a comparative analysis of the two). George Chapman was one of Shakespeare's contemporaries and likely a friend/acquaintance. His translation of the Iliad came out in 1598, so I doubt Shakespeare wasn't aware of it. Harder to pin down The Odyssey, however. Shakespeare loved the classics (especially Ovid), but I think (but am not 100% sure) that the general consensus is that Shakespeare didn't know Greek. His drawing from Plutarch was always from North's English translation. There's a book I've come across before that was called something like Shakespeare's Books, but I looked for that title recently and couldn't find it (there's another book with a similar title, but it's not the one I was thinking of). But yes, Shakespeare definitively knew SOME Homer through translation, but probably not all.

Originally Posted by Christine

Where would you suggest someone start with Milton?

I would 100% suggest the 1645 Poems. I say that not because I have a particular interest in that volume (I presented on it at Renaissance Society of America's conference this past March, and will be doing so at RSA again next year), but because Milton's fingerprints are all over it, which was at least slightly uncommon of poetry editions by that time. He has a few explanatory headnotes to some poems, and one in which he admits to the reader that it was a poem that he abandoned because he had been too young to do the subject justice (which begs the question why he included it in the first place!). There's a great 20th century reprinting that's been long out of print, but is relatively cheap and available if you look for it. The editor is Cleanth Brooks. Here's a link to a copy I just located on Abebooks (my go-to for used scholarly books), but the link will probably expire when someone buys that copy, so mea culpa if it's nullified soon.