Talk:Palgrave's Golden Treasury

[Untitled]
Wouldn't it make sense to separate out Palgrave's original selection from the additions made by John Press? There are many editions of Palgrave's original. Many have supplements, but each has a different selection. Poetlister 10:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite right - but it's a huge job. When I first wrote this I didn't have the recent Christopher Ricks Penguin of the GT, which I think has the best data for tracking what was in. There are of course numerous editions - the Laurence Binyon one is quite well known. To do this properly, one would have first to establish, via Ricks say, what the core sections I-IV were. Charles Matthews 12:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * All you need is Cecil Day Lewis' edition, which reproduces Palgrave's original selection and has a supplement completely independent of Press'.-- Poetlister 10:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the original edition, not the revised one, had input from Tennyson. In terms of what's in the original one, there's a version of it from 1875 up at Bartleby. john k (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Palgrave's Golden Treasury/ omitted poet
A poem by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is listed in the contents of the 1861 edition of Palgrave's Golden Treasury. However, the Wikipedia article on the Treasury omits this Elizabethan/Jacobean poet in its otherwise comprehensive list of poets. His poem, "Women" aka "Renunciation", appears there and in "Shakespeare" Identified by J. Thomas Looney, pp. 140, 595, as "Woman's Changefulness". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the worst article on WP...
...far outstripping yer average village in Iran (pop. 72), a species of minute bivalve sea snail, and a footballer who played left back in Montenegro League 3 in 1972.

WP:SD beckons. "Input from Tennyson"? Citation badly needed. Gimme a break. MinorProphet (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)