Print

Print


So would any feminist critic, including me.   It is based in the fact
that only men could (in many places still can) be legally witnesses
(although according to one source this connection is rejected, but it is
the same root in both entries of the OED).  I was just making a point
because Peter was denying it.  But it is not just the root that is not
fixed--his claim.  It includes that root because of language, not
because anyone chooses or not.
Nancy


Nancy I think a Marxist critic like Terry Eagleton would argue that
"testimony" certainly does imply witnessing in the context of
patriarchal law and therefore does include "testes." Diana



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 07/11/07 10:38 AM >>>