From: zatavu-AT-excite.com Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: PLC: Poetry, prose, fiction as meaningful On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:23:07 -0500, phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote: > I think not, especially in that Romanticism set itself against > Classicism, quite deliberately. Its strength was in the coherence of its > attack, not in the proposal to replace the attacked (Wordsworth, for > instance, completely failed to get "Nature" to fly, and both PBS and STC > saw that and worked on the imagination as alternative). No, Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, and brought back a form of classicism in order to do so, thinking that it was closer to the emotional center they were trying to achieve through their Romanticism. ROmanticism gave direct rise to Neo-Classicism. Troy Camplin > > g > > Fredrik Hertzberg LIT wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, George Y. Trail wrote: > > > > > The transcendent is precisely the creation of the classicist, not the > > > romantic. The timeless is a classical conception, as is the ideal. If > > > you think not you have written Socrates down as a romantic, which is a > > > real stretch. > > > > Good points. But historically, can't romanticism be seen as a > > continuation of classicism, in the sense that romanticism was a > > celebration of that (boourgeois) universality which classicism rhetorically > > strived for? (And thus, the rhetoricity of classicism was in many > > ways more apparent than romantic rhetoric which in many cases wanted to > > hide its artifice?) > > > > Fred > > > > --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005