I imagine that at least some of your question is answered in Peter Mack's
recent _Elizabethan Rhetoric_ (Cambridge, 2002). So far I've bought it
but not yet--alas!--read it. My loss for the moment, as Peter is a
careful and thorough scholar.
Jameela Lares
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Wilson-Okamura wrote:
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Jameela Lares
Associate Professor of English
Univ. of So. Mississippi
118 College Drive #5037
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001
+601 266-6214
|