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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|