The notion that English is "not good enough" is, I think, more complicated
than it appears. Chaucer derives a lot of his textual energy from the
multiple registers of English with respect to respectability, and then in
the Protestant reformation, the quality of humility and "workmanlike"
simplicity in English is quickly adopted as a virtue. I think Wendy Wall's
work on this has been really interesting. "Renaissance National Husbandry:
Gervase Markham and the Publication of England." Sixteenth Century Journal
27 (1996): 767-85.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wilson-Okamura" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:52 AM
Subject: what was English good for?
> Over the several months, I have been reading a pair of the most wonderful
> new books -- well, new to me, anyway:
>
> Grosser, Hermann. La sottigliezza del disputare: teorie degli stili e
> teorie dei generi in età rinascimentale e nel Tasso. Pubblicazioni della
> Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell'Università di Milano 149. Sezione a
> cura dell'Istituto di filologia moderna 19. Florence: Nuova Italia, 1992.
>
> and
>
> Ramos, María José Vega. El secreto artificio: Qualitas sonorum,
> maronolatría y tradición pontaniana en la poética del Renacimiento.
> Biblioteca de filología hispánica 8. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
> Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Extremadura, 1992.
>
> It is astonishing how much useful information is collected in these two
> volumes. One of the subjects that they both treat is the old idea that
> languages have natural affinities. I don't know what modern linguists have
> to say about this, but it's an idea that was taken very seriously in the
> period that we all study. Thus, according to Tasso, Greek is a precise
> language (all of those declensions and tenses and definite articles!) and
> therefore good for describing details (cf. Auerbach's famous description
of
> the Homeric style). For broader effects, and for majesty in particular,
> Latin is the best language of all. If, however, you are going to write
> about love, then it is good to write in Tuscan. And so on.
>
> My question is this: what did the English think that their language was
> good for? As best I can tell (browsing, somewhat systematically, in the
> collections of Ren. English lit. crit. edited by Gregory Smith and Brian
> Vickers), what the English worried about was whether their language was
> good _enough_. Apparently it was. But what it was good _for_ is not clear
> to me. Did they think about such things? Or did they leave that kind of
> theorizing to the Romance languages?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> David Wilson-Okamura http://virgil.org [log in to unmask]
> East Carolina University Virgil reception, discussion, documents, &c
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|