Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:18:43 -0400
From: Stirling Newberry <allegro-AT-thecia.net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Romanticism & higher pantheism


At 6:33 PM -0500 11/9/97, George Trail wrote:
>>Properly speaking "Romanticism" is a sub-catagorey of 18th century German
>>poetry, and even people who are now happily labeled "Romantic" denied the
>>term. Partially because like the word "Impressionist" it was a term of
>>abuse.
>
>Stirling, to whom are you lecturing? Whence comes your "properly"?

Whence came the other "properly"'s

Well Mr. Trail, I can see that personal animus clouds your logic still.
Your statements are rife with "Well I'll put this young wippersnapper into
place."

I was refering to various classification schemes of German litterature that
place "Romanticism" as a short period refering to poets such as Schiller.
So much for relying on the erudition of the audience to recognise clear
references.


>>Barzun certainly thought Goethe a Romantic, as did most of the
>>post-Revolutionary Romantics.
>
>Mr. Barzun cuts not a lot of water in critcal circles.

First the statement is a fallacy - it is an appeal to force. Secondly if we
are going to compare cutting water - who is more widely read and
influential on the topic of Romanticism - Trail or Barzun? I think the
later by a wide margin. If Mr. Trail is going to argue that litterary
criticism is a cult with secret signs and so on, then this sort of
statement might cut water as opposed to break wind, but not otherwise.

It is also simply blinded by Mr. Trail's agenda to try and cut me down to
what he thinks is my "proper" place. Mr. Trail continues to wallow in the
fallacy labeled "appeal to authority".


> The word has many uses and pinning it down in
>>any particular argument is important to the clarity of the point being
>>made.
>
>Quite so, which is why I supplied the formulation.

The point was made to refute an earlier statement about the validity of
labelling Goethe a Romantic in another frame of reference. The argument did
not do this.

>Whehter Goethe was a "Romantic" or not, his formulations on art and
>>nature were widely quoted  and quite influential.
>
>To whom are you lecturing _now_? Has anyone denied this?

It bears on the question: "In which frames of reference is Goethe
considered a Romantic, and in what sense can he be said to speak for the
Romantics".

>>It can also be pointed out that when people are arguing over the heirarchy
>>of who is where with respect to any given thing, whether naturalism or
>>anything else, that means that they really agree on the fundementals and
>>are arguing about issues which would be invisible to others. Much as the
>>divisions of various kinds of vegetarianism are invisible to outsiders.
>
>You mistake the word "high" for a hierarchical designation. It is
>descriptive. It includes Blake, Keats, Shelley, Rossetti, the later Ruskin,
>Pater, Swinburne, Wallace Stevens, and Alan Ginsberg, for a start. And the
>divisions of vegetarianism are staring to anyone paying attention.
>g..


Consider the above statement amended to: "when every individuals are
engaged in any sort of differentiation of a group into sub-groups with
respect to any given standard, it implies a common agreement on the
importance of the fundemental standard and its importance. Often they are
arguing over issues which would be invisible to others which lack that
common agreement."

Someone paying attention has already agreed that attention deserves to be
paid, the differences between individuals of any group are staring to
anyone paying attention. Any 14 year old can go into great detail about the
differences between any number of pop-icons which seem indistinguishable to
almost anyone else. The question is whether anyone else really pressingly
needs to know them.

Your own posts would not pass the nit-picking that you expose mine to, and
again this is a sign that you are not responding to what I write, but out
of personal ego. This is still wasting time, yours, mine and other peoples.
Indeed if my errors are of tone and formualtion, yours consist of blunders
in basic argumentation.





Stirling Newberry
business: openmarket.com
personal: allegro-AT-thecia.net
War and Romance: http://www.thecia.net/users/allegro/public_html




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---