How dyou pronounce 'Lycidas'?

I believe it's basically "LISS-a-diss" -R. fiend 17:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Licey-duss? dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Milton professor used "LISS-i-duss", with the middle "i" like the beginning of "id". - mako 15:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is full of schwas, myself. -R. fiend 15:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"like the beginning of "id"? Do you mean latin id, or English I.D.? Shall we switch to IPA at this point? :) dab (ᛏ)

I was thinking of the Freudian "id", actually. Someone who knows classical languages would be helpful. I don't know IPA, but that would definitely be authoritative. (I tried to read schwa and am now going to go back to fighting this VMEbus crate.) - mako 21:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

knowledge of classical languages is useless in this case. It would be [lykidas] in Greek, but what we want to know is how this was realized in 17th century English. After all, we are not discussing Theocritus, but Milton. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, just goes to show how little I know. I tried the OED just now, but the closest word is lycid. The pronunciation looks like this: (imageshack) - mako 06:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten article[edit]

A new account has completely rewritten the article. Usually when replacing others' work wholesale, rather than just editing/adding to it, it's best to discuss it. It is better sourced now, but I have a few qualms. Is it a copyvio? Usually long articles that appear all at once are, though google doesn't seem to turn up anything, except that one short part seems to be taken straight from EB's guide to Shakespeare (or they are both taken from the same other source. Is this more of an essay than an encyclopedia article? Reads a bit like one to me. Should we at least try to incorporate some of the former article into this one? Should we simply revert it, and try to incorporate much of this newer material into the previous version, rather than completely replace it? It at least needs wikification, and a better intro. Anyone? R. fiend (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some editing on the article to address these concerns--added back some of the material from the earlier draft of the page, revised and reorganized some material in the first newly added section (although more could probably be done). Some of the new material could be written more smoothly, but it is sourced well and does begin to give some overview of varying critical approaches to the poem.Trixi72 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical bit[edit]

The piece itself is incredibly dynamic, enabling many different styles and patterns that overlap, "the loose ends of any one pattern disappear into the interweavings of the others."[11] The sentence was a mess so I rewrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

infamously?[edit]

"Samuel Johnson ... infamously called the pastoral form..." Jeez, let's not exaggerate. Whoever wrote that seems not to know what "infamously" means. You don't become infamous for expressing your dislike of pastoral poetry. I propose to remove it unless someone can suggest a good reason for keeping it. The sentence makes sense without it. Campolongo (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources wrongly attributed[edit]

The Womack essay to which this entry makes repeated references includes none of the quotations. The Britannica volume on English Literature for dummies (sorry, for beginners), however, is plagiarised extensively. A major overhaul is needed. It seems the previous entry was replaced maliciously, though I have no time to check it now. What should be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FejervariBoldizsar (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]