Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:55:21.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The transformation of rhetoric

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Marshall Brown
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access

Summary

The difficulty of our topic emerges into view when we consider Wordsworth's claim in the Preface to Lyrical ballads (1800), certainly one of the key programmatic statements of European Romanticism, that the poet has ‘taken as much pains to avoid… as others ordinarily take to produce’ what he calls ‘poetic diction’ The term refers to exactly that sort of linguistic stylization that traditional rhetorical doctrine, from antiquity to the eighteenth century, had prescribed as the ornamental technique appropriate to poetic speech. Wordsworth's insistence throughout the Preface on the ‘very language of men’ or even the ‘real language of nature’ as the proper stylistic paradigm of poetry amounts, then, to a radical dissociation of poetic writing from the prescriptions of rhetorical doctrine. Coleridge, of course, did not share Wordsworth's adherence to common parlance, but his contention that ‘whatever lines can be translated into other words of the same language, without diminution of their significance, either in sense, or association, or in any worthy feeling, are so far vicious in their diction’ nevertheless implies a cognate renunciation of rhetoric insofar as the principle of the substitutability of expressions is the foundation of traditional rhetorical elocutio. Nor are these disparagements of rhetorical doctrine unique to their authors; they exemplify a widespread attitude formulated as early as the 1770s and characteristic of Romanticism generally. In this sense, one can agree with the historical diagnosis of Ernst Robert Curtius that Romanticism represents a decisive rupture in the European literary tradition precisely to the extent that it evacuates rhetorical doctrine, which had linked that tradition to its roots in antiquity, of theoretical and pedagogical significance.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, M. H., The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition, New York: Norton, 1958.Google Scholar
Arden, Reed (ed.), Romanticism and language, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Attridge, Derek, Peculiar language, London: Methuen, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barilli, Renato, Rhetoric, Menozzi, Giuliana (trans.), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland, ‘The old rhetoric: an aide-memoire’, in The semiotic challenge, Howard, Richard (trans.), New York: Hill and Wang, 1988.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst, and Hörisch, Jochen, Die Aktualität der Frühromantik, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1989.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst, German Romantic literary theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behler, Ernst, German Romantic literary theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behler, Ernst, Irony and the discourse of Modernity, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Bender, John, and Wellbery, David E. (eds.), The ends of rhetoric: history - theory - practice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Blair, Hugh, Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, London: W. Tegg, 1879.Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold, et al. (eds.), Deconstruction and criticism, New York: Seabury, 1979.Google Scholar
Blumenberg, Hans, ‘Anthropologische Annäherung an die Aktualität der Rhetorik’, in Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1981.Google Scholar
Bosse, Heinrich, ‘“Dichter kann man nicht bilden”: zur Veränderung der Schulrhetorik nach 1770’, Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik 2 (1976).Google Scholar
Bosse, Heinrich, ‘The marvellous and Romantic semiotics’, Studies in Romanticism 14 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campe, Rüdiger, ‘Die zwei Perioden des Stils’, Comparatio 2 (1991).Google Scholar
Campe, Rüdiger, Affekt und Ausdruck: zur Umwandlung der literarischen Rede im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, Cynthia, Decomposing figures: rhetorical readings in the Romantic tradition, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Biographia literaria, or, biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions, Engell, James and Bate, Walter Jackson (eds.), 2 vols., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.Google Scholar
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Biographia literaria, Shawcross, J. (ed.), Oxford University Press, 1907.Google Scholar
Dockhorn, Klaus, Macht und Wirkung der Rhetorik, Bad Homburg, Berlin and Zurich: Gehlen, 1968.Google Scholar
Engelsing, Rolf, Analphabetentum und Lektüre: zur Sozialgeschichte des Lesens in Deutschland zwischen feudaler und industrieller Gesellschaft, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1973.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, The characteristics of the present age, in Smith, William (trans.), Popular works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, London: Trübner, 1889, II.Google Scholar
Fontanier, Pierre, Les figures du discours, Paris: Flammarion, 1968.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred, Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989.Google Scholar
Fried, Michael, Absorption and theatricality: painting and beholder in the age of Diderot, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Garber, Frederick (ed.), Romantic irony, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasché, Rodolphe, ‘Überlegungen zum Begriff der Hypotypose bei Kant’, in Hart Nibbrig, Christiaan L. (ed.), Was heißt ‘Darstellen’?Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1994.Google Scholar
Hamlin, Cyrus, ‘The Temporality of selfhood: metaphor and Romantic poetry’, New Literary History 6 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Dieter, The course of remembrance and other essays on Hölderlin, Förster, Eckart (ed.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Herder, Johann Gottfried, Sämmtliche Werke, Suphan, Bernhard (ed.), Berlin: Weidmann, 1877–1913.Google Scholar
Hodgson, John A., Coleridge, Shelley, and transcendental inquiry: rhetoric, argument, metapsychology, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Hölderlin, Friedrich, Essays and letters on theory, Pfau, Thomas (trans.), Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Hölderlin, Friedrich, Sämtliche Werke, Große Stuttgarter Ausgabe, Beißner, Friedrich (ed.), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1943–85.Google Scholar
Jauss, Hans RobertSchlegels und Schillers Replik auf die “Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes”’, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, Critique of judgment, Barnard, J. H. (trans.), New York: Hafner, 1966.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, Kritik der Urteilskraft, Werkausgabe, vol. x, Weischedel, Wilhelm (ed.), Frankfurt am/Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.Google Scholar
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Nancy, Jean-Luc, The literary absolute: the theory of literature in early German Romanticism, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2 vols., Munich: Hueber, 1960.Google Scholar
Luhmann, NiklasTemporalisierung von Komplexität: zur Semantik neuzeitlicher Zeitbegriffe’, Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1980Google Scholar
Man, Paul, Allegories of reading, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Man, Paul, Blindness and insight, expanded edition, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Man, Paul, The rhetoric of Romanticism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Mellor, Anne K., English Romantic irony, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menninghaus, Winfried, Unendliche Verdopplung: die frühromantische Grundlegung der Kunsttheorie im Begriff absoluter Selbstreflexion, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1987.Google Scholar
Most, Glenn W., ‘Rhetorik und Hermeneutik: zur Konstitution der Neuzeitlichkeit’, Antike und Abendland 30 (1984).Google Scholar
Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt, ‘Fichte und die romantische Sprachtheorie’ in Der transzendentale Gedanke: die gegenwärtige Darstellung der Philosophie Fichtes, Hammacher, Klaus (ed.), Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1981.Google Scholar
Novalis, , Schriften: die Werke Friedrich von Hardenbergs, Kluckhohn, Paul and Samuel, Richard H. (eds.), 5 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960–1988.Google Scholar
Novalis, , Schriften: die Werke Friedrich von Hardenbergs, Paul Kluckhohn and Richard Samuel in collaboration with Mähl, Hans-Joachim and Schulz, Gerhard (eds.), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960–8.Google Scholar
O'Brien, William Arctander, Novalis: signs of revolution, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Pfau, Thomas, ‘Rhetoric and the existential: Romantic studies and the question of the subject’, Studies in Romanticism 26 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajan, Tilottama, ‘Displacing post-structuralism: Romantic studies after Paul de Man’, Studies in Romanticism 24 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, ErnstCurtius, European literature and the Latin Middle Ages, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Robert, Griffn, Wordsworth's Pope: a study in literary historiography, Cambridge University Press 1995Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie, ‘Romantisme et langage poétique’, Poétique 42 (1980).Google Scholar
Schanze, Helmut, Rhetorik: Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte in Deutschland vom 16.–20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1974.Google Scholar
Schanze, Helmut (ed.), Friedrich Schlegel und die Kunsttheorie seiner Zeit, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988.Google Scholar
Schlegel, August Wilhelm, A course of lectures on dramatic art and literature, London: H. G. Bohn, 1846.Google Scholar
Schlegel, August Wilhelm, Sämmtliche Werke, Böcking, Eduard (ed.), Leipzig: Weidmann'sche Buchhandlung, 1846.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich, ‘Fragmente’, in Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe, 35 vols., Behler, Ernst and Eichner, Hans (eds.), Munich: Schöningh, 1958, II.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich, A Dialogue on poetry and literary aphorisms, Behler, Ernst and Struc, Roman (trans.), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich, Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe, Ernst Behler with the collaboration of Anstett, Jean-Jacques, Eichner, Hans, et al. (eds.), Paderborn: Schöningh, 1958–.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich, Literary notebooks, Eichner, Hans (ed.), University of London/Athlone Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich, Philosophical fragments, Firchow, Peter (trans.), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam, Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, Bryce, J. C. (ed.) Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1985.Google Scholar
Smith, John, The spirit and the letter: traces of rhetoric in Hegel's philosophy of Bildung, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan, Theories of the symbol, Porter, Catherine (trans.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Ueding, Gerd, Schillers Rhetorik: Idealistische Wirkungsästhetik und rhetorische Tradition, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1971.Google Scholar
Ueding, Gerd (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1992ff.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, William, Prose Works, Warwick, J. B. O. and Smyser, J. W. (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Young, Edward, The complete works, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968, reprint of the 1854 London edition.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×