In

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Spenser Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1086/717244
M. Murray
{"title":"In","authors":"M. Murray","doi":"10.1086/717244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"hat’s in a lyric? This basic definitional question, one that lies beneath the very notion of “lyric keywords,” can point down a number of critical avenues—inviting us to consider, for example, lyric poetry’s thematic preoccupations (love or longing, God or small things), its formal or stylistic quiddities (meter or rhyme, tone or voice), or its verbal texture (all those “I”s and “ah”s).While this essay will venture down some, if not all, of those avenues, it will focus on the modest preposition at the center of the originating question. This vanishingly brief, deceptively reticent monosyllable metonymizes some of the most enduring critical concepts in the study of lyric. It also, more interestingly, hints at what we might call a prepositional understanding of the genre. And with that, to borrow the words of a poet who will reappear later in this essay, “Let’s in.” Let’s start, in fact, with one of the most familiar critical definitions of the lyric: that it is a genre profoundly concerned with interiority or inwardness. Critics have long argued over what kind of address we take a lyric poem to be; is it, to quote John Stuart Mill, “feeling confessing itself to itself, in moments of solitude,” or is it an address (direct or indirect) to a listener (visible or invisible)? Setting aside the vexed question of audience or occasion, we might still wish to grant that the stated subject of much lyric poetry is the speaker’s inmost feeling or thought and the nuances of individual psychological, emotional, or spiritual experience. Examples of this kind of lyric inwardness crowd the Renaissance canon, with poetic speaker after poetic speaker claiming to have followed, in one way or another, the directive of Astrophil’s muse: “Looke in thy heart and write.” This inward turn can sometimes be presented as reluctant, even painful—as, for example, in the claustrophobic self-scrutiny of the “hurt imagination” in Fulke Greville’s Caelica 100 (“In","PeriodicalId":39606,"journal":{"name":"Spenser Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spenser Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

hat’s in a lyric? This basic definitional question, one that lies beneath the very notion of “lyric keywords,” can point down a number of critical avenues—inviting us to consider, for example, lyric poetry’s thematic preoccupations (love or longing, God or small things), its formal or stylistic quiddities (meter or rhyme, tone or voice), or its verbal texture (all those “I”s and “ah”s).While this essay will venture down some, if not all, of those avenues, it will focus on the modest preposition at the center of the originating question. This vanishingly brief, deceptively reticent monosyllable metonymizes some of the most enduring critical concepts in the study of lyric. It also, more interestingly, hints at what we might call a prepositional understanding of the genre. And with that, to borrow the words of a poet who will reappear later in this essay, “Let’s in.” Let’s start, in fact, with one of the most familiar critical definitions of the lyric: that it is a genre profoundly concerned with interiority or inwardness. Critics have long argued over what kind of address we take a lyric poem to be; is it, to quote John Stuart Mill, “feeling confessing itself to itself, in moments of solitude,” or is it an address (direct or indirect) to a listener (visible or invisible)? Setting aside the vexed question of audience or occasion, we might still wish to grant that the stated subject of much lyric poetry is the speaker’s inmost feeling or thought and the nuances of individual psychological, emotional, or spiritual experience. Examples of this kind of lyric inwardness crowd the Renaissance canon, with poetic speaker after poetic speaker claiming to have followed, in one way or another, the directive of Astrophil’s muse: “Looke in thy heart and write.” This inward turn can sometimes be presented as reluctant, even painful—as, for example, in the claustrophobic self-scrutiny of the “hurt imagination” in Fulke Greville’s Caelica 100 (“In
歌词里有什么?这个基本的定义问题,一个隐藏在“抒情关键词”概念之下的问题,可以指出许多关键的途径——邀请我们考虑,例如,抒情诗的主题关注点(爱或渴望,上帝或小事),它的形式或风格特征(韵律或押韵,语气或声音),或它的言语结构(所有那些“我”和“啊”)。虽然这篇文章将冒险沿着其中的一些(如果不是全部的话)途径,但它将集中在原始问题中心的适度介词上。这种消失的简短,看似沉默的单音节转喻的一些最持久的关键概念,在抒情研究。更有趣的是,它还暗示了一种我们可以称之为介词的体裁理解。就这样,借用一位诗人的话他将在这篇文章的后面再次出现,“让我们进去吧。”事实上,让我们从最熟悉的对抒情诗的批判性定义开始:抒情诗是一种深刻关注内在性或内在性的体裁。长期以来,评论家们一直在争论我们应该把一首抒情诗当作什么样的称谓;用约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的话来说,它是“在孤独的时刻向自己忏悔的感觉”,还是对听众(有形或无形)的一种(直接或间接的)称呼?撇开听众和场合的问题不谈,我们也许仍然愿意承认,许多抒情诗所表达的主题是讲述者内心深处的感受或思想,以及个人心理、情感或精神体验的细微差别。这种抒情性内在的例子在文艺复兴的经典中比比皆是,一个又一个诗人的演讲者声称,他们以这样或那样的方式遵循了阿斯特罗菲尔的缪斯女神的指示:“看着你的内心,然后写作。”这种内向的转向有时会表现得不情愿,甚至是痛苦的——例如,在福尔克·格雷维尔(Fulke Greville)的《卡利卡》(Caelica 100)中,对“受伤的想象”的幽闭恐惧症的自我审视中
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
Spenser Studies
Spenser Studies Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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