Abstract
What then is the relationship between rhetoric and poetic? Rhetorical studies have consistently attempted to separate the two, and their changing relationship has become an index to broader questions concerning the nature of the perception of the world, of the pursuit of value and the process of evaluation. Questions of rhetoric and poetic always turn to the nature of the interdependence of logic, grammar, poetic and rhetoric. Any attempt to view them as separate entities starts a breakdown which distorts the nature of their relationships. For example, thinking of logic as something pure and apart to be worked on separately implies that it can exist on its own. But in effect it always takes a particular grammar and rhetoric and poetic with it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes to Chapter Three: Rhetorical Stance
F. Bacon, The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis, ed. A. Johnston ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974 ) p. 141.
F. and B. Christensen, Notes Towards a New Rhetoric: Nine Essays for Teachers (New York: Harper & Row, 1968; first published 1967 ).
J. Sprat, from prose extract in The Scientific Background, a Prose Anthology, ed. A. M. Jeffares and M. B. Davies ( London: Pitman, 1958 ) p. 22.
J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in Two Volumes, ed. J. W. Yolton (London: J. M. Dent, 1961). It should however be noted that Locke did differentiate between maxims and self-evident assumptions, teaching-guides (u, pp. 192–208).
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ed. C. T. Onions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) p. 539.
M. McLuhan, Counterblast (London: Rapp & Whiting, 1970; first published 1969) p. 305.
R. Whateley, Elements of Logic ( London: J. Mawman, 1826 ) p. 11.
R. McKerrow, ‘“Method of Composition”: Whateley’s Earliest “Rhetorice”’, Philosophy and Rhetoric, xi, no. 1 (Winter 1978 ).
I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950; first published 1936 ).
K. Burke, ‘Adepts of “Pure” Literature’, Counter-Statement (Los Altos: Hermes, 1933; first published 1931 ).
See also G. Genette, Figures III ( Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1972 ), , where Genette expands his ideas on modern rhetoric specifically.
R. Barthes, Mythologies, trs. A. Lavers (London: Jonathan Cape, 1972; first published 1957 ) p. 158.
B. Johnson, ‘The Frame of Reference: Poe, Lacan, Derrida’, Yale French Studies, 55–6 (1977) pp. 457–505. I am indebted, for reference to this article and those it discusses, to Diane Macdonnel’s seminars on the topics, Liverpool University, 1978–9.
Copyright information
© 1984 Lynette Hunter
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hunter, L. (1984). Rhetorical Stance. In: Rhetorical Stance in Modern Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07061-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07061-9_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-07063-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-07061-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)