Talk:The Testament of Cresseid

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

It "transcends its source in many ways, including its concision, its seriousness and its distinctive humanity" - really?

Is this not an assertion, rather than a fact - and a dubious one at that?

Manxdave (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time's up. I've changed it, although I've probably erred on the side of generosity.

Manxdave (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though not for the "generosity". Has now been rewritten and subjective comparison dropped. Yes, in first form it was a clumsy assertion but I was after trying to identify differences which most commentators recognise, so not dubious.

I think Henryson does "transcend" the source here (not Chaucer per se) in economy, humanity and seriousness because he achieves a different kind of poem. Both poems are unquestionably successful. (I'm not convinced the two poets' respective "serious" agendas were ultimately that different, but that's infinitely more contentious.)

My actual personal objective belief is that Henryson by artistic inference is one of the first mature, intentional and perceptive "critical" readers we know of Chaucer. James I was more of an imitator, but Henryson is more of a peer.

Sorry never got back sooner.

strangtea (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]