Comprehensive Analysis of Joseph Levine\'s Battle of the Books PDF

Preview

Summary

This is an example of the final essay of the semester taught by Dr. Andrew R Walkling....

Description

Newsome 1

SUNY Binghamton: Social Studies Concerning Joseph Levine’s the Battle of the Books Critique of EighteenthCentury Debate Literature English 350R: Augustan Literature

Sekaya Marie Newsome Professor Andrew Walkling SUNY Binghamton University April 18, 2019

Newsome 2

Joseph M. Levine elucidates the development of ancient and modern scholarship in master work, The Battle of the Books. The general subject of the book exposes the world of scholarship, and how this community determines the standard uses of scholarly works in academia. The analysis provides attestation that scholarship, at the turn of the eighteenthcentury, was not based upon factual evidence, but with oppressive peer review. These ancient scholars accepted critique within a certain degree of familiarity, and disregarded these critiques with malice. The ancients were most comfortable conversing amongst one another, and those with modern thought were most comfortable with an expansion of belief and perception. Joseph Levine’s analysis is thorough, and holds concrete evidence. This paper will examine the method, utility, and style of the eighteenth-century debate in scholarship. We will derive the methods of style used by scholars to deliver their stances of which determined how the vehicle of utility of academic study per peer-review shaped and impacted society and modern thought. The method of delivery during eighteenth-century public debate took place in the form of printed pamphlets. The Battle of the Books provides footnote references to the pamphlets used to respond and deliver the debate of questions between the ancients and the moderns. A visual excerpt of these pamphlets would have proved more effective, and would have made it easier to respond to the examples within Levine’s book, however, the attention that the essays of scholarship received depended on the reputations of authors, though not all of the authors in scholarship had reputations through academic mentorship. Sir William Temple, referenced on page 16, received reputation for his commentary studies during his career in politics. Without reputations of both recommendation and praise, the arguments would not receive attention. This

Newsome 3

method of reputation-based advertisement provided the foundation for method of delivery in the debate of questions. Doctor Richard Bentley’s Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris is a response to Sir William Temple’s praise of the Epistles of Phalaris. The response displays the subject of the most conflict within the book, and we will use this as an example to study the utilization of Levine’s analysis in argument between the moderns and the ancients. Dr. Bentley’s work proved extremely controversial because he sought to correct and attack those who felt strongly about the Epistles of Phalaris. Dr. Bentley’s curt language and confidence within his ability to parse the Latin language had attracted the attention of ancient scholars. The pamphlets of dissertation and differential knowledge were published with clear distinctions written to address the subject of thought. In the Battle of the Books, Joseph Levine provides satirical examples of the utility of language that was used to combat and praise within the debate of philosophy and science that occurred between the ancients and the moderns. The utility of tone in Levine’s third-person narrative reads with sharpness, and is a prime example that pokes fun at how the academic critique community communicates. The language used by scholars to praise or align themselves in agreement with other scholars is riddled with poetic descriptions that praise the authors of the texts that they are defending. An example of Temple’s praise of the Epistles, taken from page 49 of Levine’s book, “The Epistles he thought, had ‘more Race, more Spirit, more Force of Wit and Genius, than any others I have ever seen, either ancient or modern.’ Temple was aware that some people he knew that the Politian (fifteenth-century Italian humanist) and others had ascribed them to Lucian.”

Newsome 4

Levine also references on page 49, Temple’s praise of the author of the Epistles of Phalaris, “...such diversity of Passions and such variety of Actions and Passages of Life and Government...” In response, on page 53, Bentley commented on the authors of the Epistles, describing them as men who were common and of small endeavors (Levine). The Christ Church responded, attacking Bentley directly, dismissing his texts as mere pedantry, “rude and unmannerly, dogmatic and opinionated,” (Levin 61). Though these men were not scholars, they defended the antiquity of the texts. They chose to align themselves with the ancient scholars, and their only power lay in the trust of the classic scholars. Association to academic circles of common though is a recurring theme within the scholarly community, and is a tradition used in modern day thought for references of evidentiary confirmation. The community of scholarship utilizes credentials of scholars to provide commentary, but only when active participants are given the power of influence within their social circle. A common theme is that authors are in disagreement, and feel that their foundations for knowledge of academia are threatened, the critics venture towards insulting versus a citation of evidence or explanation in the form of deviatory communication. It is easier to dismiss ideas in larger groups than to stand unsupported, and this is because the forethought of knowledge is autonomously given to the originators of philosophy. Joseph Levine mastered the use of satire to mock the argument between the moderns and the ancients. The dismissal of the pursuit of new ideas is modern in thought. A modern-day example of this is Donald Trump’s campaign. Instead of listening to his speeches, analyzing them, the community of intellect chose to focus on his personal character versus his method and form of speech. The challengers of his rhetoric represent a community of stagnant oppressors of speech and literature in debate. If, as a community, we choose to focus only on the physical

Newsome 5

representations of our leaders, we stagnate as a people who are both superficial and shallow. Donald Trump has grown significantly in his field and provides evidence of monetary growth in certain fields within the United States, he is un-ready to defend or respond to frivolous accusations and challenges with eloquence, because he feels, as Bentley does, “we should already know this.” This is exhausting, and conclusively, the lack of background in the field does not apply when there is a community of power that refuses to acknowledge a new way of thinking, especially when it contains the truth.

Newsome 6

Levine, Joseph M. The Battle of the Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age. Cornell University Press, 1994....