¹ B.'s ‘restrictive’ definition of politics and ‘inclusive’ definition of imagery seem opposed to the mainstream of a field in which one is used to hearing about the ‘politics’ of just about anything (e.g. metaphor) and in which generations of scholars have achieved admirable precision in the discernment of varieties of imagery (see, e.g., the bibliography of Silk, M.S., ‘Metaphor and Metonomy: Aristotle, Jakobson, Ricoeur, and Others’, in Boys-Stones, G. [ed.], Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition [2003], pp. 115–47).CrossRefGoogle Scholar