precisely; we we who are not precise enough are onto our
annoyance/bemusement, symptoms of our anxiety, of anything vexing, anything
which requires difficult thinking, anything which challenges assumptions
which I wouldn't even like to call "theoretical" but which have allowed us
for at least the past two decades to discuss Renaissance texts while
pretending to be historicist without saying much about them in terms of the
aesthetic concerns of the time. Whoever the author of *The Arte of English
Poesie* (1588) may have been physically, his major concern, like the
concern of Fraunce, Barnfield, Spenser in his pastorals, and the many other
authors I mentioned whose texts I have devoted my professional life to
exploring and about which I have published extensively, and would like to
explore and see explored in depth and detail regardless of whether or not
their bodies were identical, was the oral, the "tunable and melodious" what
creates "simpathie, or pleasuant conueniencie with th'eare." If we are not
all that ignorant of rhetoric and musicality and affect in their
interrelation, it is amazing how little we make of them in our professional
statements in all forums. As Andy Green nicely put it, pastoral poetry is
an ongoing conversaion which must continue. I am sorry to say it seems to
me whoever is anxious for such conversation to end so as to comfortably
return to an a-historicist imaginary is sadly anti-intellectual. But
Renaissance texts are far too beautiful, intriguing, and alluring to be
left to teh anti-intellectual. And so, future being the tense of desire,
the conversation will continue.
Shirley Sharon-Zisser
At 20:53 17/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I've been waiting in bemusement for this strand to run
>itself out; for those of us whose principal interest texts
>rather than authors there is little at stake, but I've
>decided to express some annoyance at the accelerating
>snottiness of these posts. Am I the only one perceiving or
>put off by this condescending rhetoric about rhetoric. I
>don't think the members of this list are generally
>all that ignorant of rhetoric--renaissance and classical.
>As for drawing precise distinctions, as I recall the author
>sometimes known as Puttenham (another of Marlowe's
>aliases?) discussed the vexedness of rhetorical
>nomenclature in _The Art of Poetry_ , so maybe we who are
>not precise enough are onto something.
>
>On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:58:35 +0200 shirley sharon-zisser
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> In Renaissance rhetoric, failures to draw precise distinctions would entail
>> derision. In most contemporary professions, they might entail professional
>> penalty such as one's losing one's license. In Renaissance literary
>> studies, such failures unfortunately remain the name of the game, along
>> with obscure gestures to "stock" traditions, "general dictums," and
>> "cultural discourses." It is hugh time we beginto be intellectually
>> responsible and put an end to this.
>>
>> Shirley Sharon-Zisser
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>----------------------
>Marshall Grossman
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|