Fisch again: Hebraic prose is different from the grand style of the sixteenth century, and different too from the pared-down plain style shared by many Puritans and all Baconians. It is a rhetoric, not an anti-rhetoric, but it is a rhetoric purified by Puritanism, Senecanism, and scientism. It is . . . . Continue Reading »
In his 1964 book, Jerusalem and Albion: The Hebraic Factor in Seventeenth-Century Literature , Harold Fisch argues that Blake provides a more insightful and broader account of the seventeenth century’s “dissociation of sensibility” than Eliot, who coined the phrase. For Blake, the . . . . Continue Reading »
William Deresiewicz has an excellent review of a new biography of Joseph Conrad in the June 11 issue of TNR . One thread of the review has to do with Conrad’s phantasmagorical vision of European imperialism and his related concern for the moral dangers of isolation from well-known social . . . . Continue Reading »
In an effort to maintain his distinction of meaning and significance, interpretation and critical assessment, E. D. Hirsch examines Welleck’s treatment of Marvell’s phrase “vegetable love.” He notes that “Welleck could not even make his point unless he could . . . . Continue Reading »
Tallis yet again: He argues that confusion of langue and parole : leads to “conflation of the idea of a world as a value or set of values within the system with the meaning of a word used on a particular occasion, that by virtue of which verbal meaning is specified with verbal meaning itself, . . . . Continue Reading »
Tallis thinks that one of the basic confusions of post-Saussurean criticism is a confusion of the levels of parole and langue . Signifiers and signifieds are, for Saussure, purely differential; but words are not signifiers or signifieds, but types of signs, which are combinations of the two. . . . . Continue Reading »
Does language take cues from reality? Tallis says Yes; at least, that’s one kind of relation language has to reality. His charming evidence: He notes that it’s more common to add “barking” to “dog” than to add other verbs. If language doesn’t take its cues . . . . Continue Reading »
Tallis contests the post-structuralist notion that all distinctions are linguistic, imported to reality by what we say about them. This, he thinks, oversimplifies a more complex situation. For some realities, the “edges” are determined by language, because those realities depend on . . . . Continue Reading »
Tallis is Not Saussure about post-structuralism, but that’s partly because he things posts distort the original structuralism of Saussure. Even if Saussure is correct that there no ideas before language links a sound with a concept, that doesn’t mean that there is no differentiation in . . . . Continue Reading »
Raymond Tallis ( Not Saussure ) is no friend of post-structuralism, but he recognizes that absent texts shape the reading of present ones: “What seems to be offered to us when we confront a particular work is at least partly determined by the silent presence of other works belonging to the . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
