I don't know Carrol. I think the "autonomous" individuals were always there maybe. It was literary conventions, the facade of life, that had to be torn down, before isolation could find it's means of expression. Especially once the tight-ass patriachy was fully entrenched. Ever read that thing about Inanna, Queen of Heaven, who decended into the underworld, returns, holding the demons at bay, just to get home to here beloved hubby, who's totally not "present" for her? Good thing she had a woman friend.
Anyway, isn't it kind of like when people always dressed up for those old photographs. People we'nt really like that, it was just what they did for exhibition.
>All in all this matter of ranking poets, musicians, painters is
>a mug's game. Fun to play (I've just been playing it) but
>pretty empty. But I can't resist adding: even within the narrow
>limits of what you might call "western classical bourgeois
>literature" (which includes earlier literature redefined within
>bourgeois culture), the period from (roughly) 1870 to 1950 was in
>every way richer than the Renaissance.
>
>Carrol
Never liked the Renaissance myself. Didn't get most of the time-line title things. To this day, I won't go to the Renaissance Festival with my best friend, who bugs me every year, though neither of us remembers who wrote what, during the Renaissance.
Don't yell at me carrolpuss.
smooches paula
ps.
>One needs to remember that Marx is only Aristotle with an
>attitude.
>
>bye-bye
>
>Carrol
Yeah? But who will tell the people?
tickle, tickle-p.