Muckelbauer claims that the practices of imitation still have value, despite Romantic conceptions of the subject (i.e. the belief in a unique/autonomous/essential self). HOW does he support this claim?
Muckelbauer supports his claim primarily by invoking the long and arguably successful history of the imitative method. Only in the last century or two have the “Romantic conceptions” entered the writing arena at large, but we certainly find great thinkers and writers and speakers before that time. Muckelbauer resides largely in Greece and Rome, dealing with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Quintillian, amongst others; Demosthenes is mentioned as a primary example of someone who used the imitative strategy for some reason or another (though he isn’t especially explicit as to why Demosthenes copied Thucydides so copiously; perhaps we don’t know). Further, Muckelbauer puts forth three models of imitation, two of which imply some originality and individuality, especially the last of the three, “inspiration.” Thus, it seems, Muckelbauer is almost attempting to argue that Romantic conception is probably imitation in one form or another, even if we don’t like to admit it (and we don’t).
Entries (RSS)
February 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Good
Best,
DrA