 |
 |
I agree with Jon, and his interesting response reminded me of something: At various recent conferences Lynn Enterline has been sharing bits of her wonderful project on humanist pedagogy and Shakespeare. From what I've heard or seen of the project, which is still in progress, I'd say it throws (or will throw) a lot of light on this topic. >David and all, > >What a wonderful topic for inquiry and >discussion! I hope we'll have a good long >string of contributions. One thing that comes >to mind, as a basis for comparison, is Walter >Ong's old essay, of which I recall little beyond >the provocative title, 'Latin Language Study as >a Renaissance Puberty Rite.' Having passed >through that rite, as I take it all the writers >who matter to us did, why did the makers of >Elizabethan English devote themselves to >developing the uses of their mother tongue? I >would suggest that, given the motley state of >English, with its various regional dialects and >argots, and the developments in commerce that >brought so many people up against each others' >differences, in London and elsewhere (most >emphatically, perhaps, in Ireland), English more >or less had to be developed as the matrix within >which people could be sorted, and in which >social mobility could be regulated. Hence the >development of 'aureate' language, on the one >hand, and hyper-colorful vern! >acular language on the other. > >Against this backdrop, what was it that drove >Spenser to develop his artificially archaic >language -- >'no language,' according to Jonson? > >Does it help to consider the notion that >'writing is about anxiety' -- specifically, I >guess, an anxious desire to control the passing >away of things, thoughts, all that was once >tried and true? > >Cheers, Jon Quitslund >> 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 etý rinascimentale e nel Tasso. Pubblicazioni della >> Facoltý di lettere e filosofia dell'Universitý di Milano 149. Sezione a >> cura dell'Istituto di filologia moderna 19. Florence: Nuova Italia, 1992. >> >> and >> >> Ramos, MarÌa JosÈ Vega. El secreto artificio: Qualitas sonorum, >> maronolatrÌa y tradiciÛn pontaniana en la poÈtica del Renacimiento. >> Biblioteca de filologÌa hisp·nica 8. Madrid: Consejo Superior de >> Investigaciones CientÌficas, 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 >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------