Template:Did you know nominations/Kelmscott Press
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kelmscott Press
House made of "twigges" in Chaucer's "The House of Fame"
- ... that in the Kelmscott Press's acclaimed Complete Works of Chaucer, illustrator Burne-Jones depicts a house "made of twigges" (pictured) in an unusually literal style? Source: "Burne-Jones insisted that he was trying to see Chaucer's poetry afresh, not merely through the eyes of earlier illustrators, and this often led to a peculiar sort of literalism in his interpretation of the text: the example often noticed by readers of the Chaucer is the extraordinary image of the House 'made of twigges' as a large wicker basket in The Hous of Fame." (The Kelmscott Press by William S. Peterson, p. 248)
- ALT1:... that William Morris versified the language of a prose translation of Beowulf and made the language even more archaic for its publication with his Kelmscott Press? Source: "Published in 1895, just one year before his death, Morris’s version of Beowulf was based on a prose translation by a young Cambridge University scholar in Anglo-Saxon, A.J. Wyatt. But Morris reinterpreted this translation into verse format and favoured using deliberately archaic diction that often mirrored the original, perhaps attempting to evoke the strange ancient setting of the original." Cambridge University Library article on Morris's Beowulf
- Reviewed: Zenith Easy PC
5x expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC).
This article replaces a redirect and is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
