类型学、寓言与新教诗学

T. P. Roche
{"title":"类型学、寓言与新教诗学","authors":"T. P. Roche","doi":"10.1353/GHJ.1990.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric, since its publication in 1979, has established the term \"Protestant poetics\" as an accepted term of literary inquiry and has invested that term with an unquestioned reality that should be examined within the larger context of late medieval and Renaissance poetry, not exclusively lyric. The critical acceptance of this term ignores many problems that should deeply concern us as an academic community. One such problem is that in English literary studies we tend to set up sub-groups; we are \"definers,\" in the Lati nate sense of \"setting limits.\" Thus, we in Departments of English separate the Renaissance in England from the Renaissance on the Continent; separated by that narrowchannel, we further divide that English Renaissance into Sixteenth Century vs. Seventeenth Century, Elizabethan vs. Jacobean, and within those temporal and monarchical schemes, we further divide into dramatic vs. non-dramatic, epic vs. lyric, etc. The problem is further compounded by a universal law that insists on a virtually total separation between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. These divisions are helpful for the clarity of our departmental curricula, but they are not helpful for a full picture of a culture at any period. Lewalski had every disciplinary right to choose the seventeenth-century religious lyric as the subject of her book, but in that choice her imposition of the term \"Protestant poetics\" equally forces her to disregard the work of Richard Crashaw, an English Roman Catholic poet of the period, whose similarities to the poets she chose makes his omission seriously call into question the validity of her claims for a \"Protestant poetics,\" as Louis Martz noted in his review when","PeriodicalId":143254,"journal":{"name":"George Herbert Journal","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Typology, Allegory, and Protestant Poetics\",\"authors\":\"T. P. Roche\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/GHJ.1990.0018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric, since its publication in 1979, has established the term \\\"Protestant poetics\\\" as an accepted term of literary inquiry and has invested that term with an unquestioned reality that should be examined within the larger context of late medieval and Renaissance poetry, not exclusively lyric. The critical acceptance of this term ignores many problems that should deeply concern us as an academic community. One such problem is that in English literary studies we tend to set up sub-groups; we are \\\"definers,\\\" in the Lati nate sense of \\\"setting limits.\\\" Thus, we in Departments of English separate the Renaissance in England from the Renaissance on the Continent; separated by that narrowchannel, we further divide that English Renaissance into Sixteenth Century vs. Seventeenth Century, Elizabethan vs. Jacobean, and within those temporal and monarchical schemes, we further divide into dramatic vs. non-dramatic, epic vs. lyric, etc. The problem is further compounded by a universal law that insists on a virtually total separation between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. These divisions are helpful for the clarity of our departmental curricula, but they are not helpful for a full picture of a culture at any period. Lewalski had every disciplinary right to choose the seventeenth-century religious lyric as the subject of her book, but in that choice her imposition of the term \\\"Protestant poetics\\\" equally forces her to disregard the work of Richard Crashaw, an English Roman Catholic poet of the period, whose similarities to the poets she chose makes his omission seriously call into question the validity of her claims for a \\\"Protestant poetics,\\\" as Louis Martz noted in his review when\",\"PeriodicalId\":143254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"George Herbert Journal\",\"volume\":\"190 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"George Herbert Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/GHJ.1990.0018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Herbert Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/GHJ.1990.0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

《诗学与17世纪宗教抒情诗》自1979年出版以来,确立了“新教诗学”这一术语作为文学研究的公认术语,并赋予了这一术语一种不容置疑的现实,应该在中世纪晚期和文艺复兴时期诗歌的大背景下进行研究,而不仅仅是抒情诗。对这一术语的批判性接受忽略了我们作为一个学术团体应该深切关注的许多问题。其中一个问题是,在英国文学研究中,我们倾向于建立小组;我们是“定义者”,在拉丁语中是“设定限制”的意思。因此,我们英语系的学者将英国的文艺复兴与欧洲大陆的文艺复兴区分开来;在狭窄的通道中,我们进一步将英国文艺复兴分为16世纪和17世纪,伊丽莎白时代和雅各比时代,在这些时间和君主制度中,我们进一步将其分为戏剧和非戏剧,史诗和抒情等等。这一问题进一步复杂化,因为普遍规律坚持中世纪和文艺复兴之间实际上是完全分离的。这些划分有助于我们部门课程的清晰,但对任何时期的文化的全貌都没有帮助。莱瓦尔斯基有充分的学科权利选择17世纪的宗教抒情诗作为她的书的主题,但在选择时,她强加的术语“新教诗学”同样迫使她忽视了理查德·克拉肖的作品,理查德·克拉肖是当时的一位英国罗马天主教诗人,她选择的诗人与他的相似之处使得他的遗漏严重质疑了她声称的“新教诗学”的有效性,正如路易斯·马茨在他的评论中所指出的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Typology, Allegory, and Protestant Poetics
Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric, since its publication in 1979, has established the term "Protestant poetics" as an accepted term of literary inquiry and has invested that term with an unquestioned reality that should be examined within the larger context of late medieval and Renaissance poetry, not exclusively lyric. The critical acceptance of this term ignores many problems that should deeply concern us as an academic community. One such problem is that in English literary studies we tend to set up sub-groups; we are "definers," in the Lati nate sense of "setting limits." Thus, we in Departments of English separate the Renaissance in England from the Renaissance on the Continent; separated by that narrowchannel, we further divide that English Renaissance into Sixteenth Century vs. Seventeenth Century, Elizabethan vs. Jacobean, and within those temporal and monarchical schemes, we further divide into dramatic vs. non-dramatic, epic vs. lyric, etc. The problem is further compounded by a universal law that insists on a virtually total separation between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. These divisions are helpful for the clarity of our departmental curricula, but they are not helpful for a full picture of a culture at any period. Lewalski had every disciplinary right to choose the seventeenth-century religious lyric as the subject of her book, but in that choice her imposition of the term "Protestant poetics" equally forces her to disregard the work of Richard Crashaw, an English Roman Catholic poet of the period, whose similarities to the poets she chose makes his omission seriously call into question the validity of her claims for a "Protestant poetics," as Louis Martz noted in his review when
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信