Sophocles Electra 1050–57 and the Pragmatics of Tragic Exits

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1086/718802
M. Catrambone
{"title":"Sophocles Electra 1050–57 and the Pragmatics of Tragic Exits","authors":"M. Catrambone","doi":"10.1086/718802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues for the authenticity of Sophocles Electra 1050–54, deleted in Lloyd-Jones and Wilson’s and Finglass’ editions. After a refutation of scholars’ earlier objections (including Stobaeus’ misleading attribution of 1050–51 to Sophocles’ Phaedra), two substantive arguments are advanced in favor of their retention: (1) in terms of scenic grammar, if 1050–54 were removed, Chrysothemis’ exit would be ineptly unnoticed, in contradiction with Sophocles’ usual handling of exits; (2) in terms of conversation analysis, 1050–54 replicate a pre-patterned sequence ubiquitously found in tragedy to terminate rapid dialogues when exits are involved, whereas their absence would make the closing unjustifiably abrupt.","PeriodicalId":46255,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/718802","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues for the authenticity of Sophocles Electra 1050–54, deleted in Lloyd-Jones and Wilson’s and Finglass’ editions. After a refutation of scholars’ earlier objections (including Stobaeus’ misleading attribution of 1050–51 to Sophocles’ Phaedra), two substantive arguments are advanced in favor of their retention: (1) in terms of scenic grammar, if 1050–54 were removed, Chrysothemis’ exit would be ineptly unnoticed, in contradiction with Sophocles’ usual handling of exits; (2) in terms of conversation analysis, 1050–54 replicate a pre-patterned sequence ubiquitously found in tragedy to terminate rapid dialogues when exits are involved, whereas their absence would make the closing unjustifiably abrupt.
《索福克勒斯·伊莱克特拉》(1050-57)与悲剧退出的语用学
这篇文章论证了Sophocles Electra 1050–54的真实性,在Lloyd Jones、Wilson和Finglass的版本中被删除。在驳斥了学者们早期的反对意见(包括Stobaeus将1050–51错误地归因于Sophocles的Phaedra)之后,提出了两个有利于保留这些反对意见的实质性论点:(1)在风景语法方面,如果删除1050–54,Chrysothemis的退出将被笨拙地忽视,这与Sophocle斯通常处理退出的方式相矛盾;(2) 在对话分析方面,1050–54人复制了悲剧中普遍存在的一个预先模式化的序列,在涉及出口时终止快速对话,而出口的缺失会使对话的结束变得不合理地突然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Classical Philology has been an internationally respected journal for the study of the life, languages, and thought of the Ancient Greek and Roman world since 1906. CP covers a broad range of topics from a variety of interpretative points of view. CP welcomes both longer articles and short notes or discussions that make a significant contribution to the study of Greek and Roman antiquity. Any field of classical studies may be treated, separately or in relation to other disciplines, ancient or modern. In particular, we invite studies that illuminate aspects of the languages, literatures, history, art, philosophy, social life, and religion of ancient Greece and Rome. Innovative approaches and originality are encouraged as a necessary part of good scholarship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信