赐予梅毒的上帝?关于非利士人祸害的解释

IF 0.5 Q3 CULTURAL STUDIES
Matteo Bächtold
{"title":"赐予梅毒的上帝?关于非利士人祸害的解释","authors":"Matteo Bächtold","doi":"10.1515/culture-2022-0196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n To understand a text, or any other form of art work, as referring to a disease is not always obvious. This uncertainty, although confined to rare cases, nevertheless allows us to explore the limits and blind spots of certain frameworks proposed to think about the relationship between art and disease, notably Susan Sontag’s book Ilness as metaphor. In this article, I take a closer look at the calamity described in chapters 5 and 6 of the first book of Samuel and its various exegeses in the Western World. This calamity (still considered by many to be a bubonic plague), was not associated with the pandemic imaginary by ancient commentators, artists, and doctors, and it is only in modern times that medical diagnoses of the text change in this sense. I propose to see that these seemingly innocuous changes in diagnostic interpretations actually reflect deep changes in the relation between illness and divine agency. After a brief critical review of Susan Sontag’s writings on interpretation and their relationship to Ilness as Metaphor, I will proceed to trace the complex interpretation history of this calamity, before drawing observations about the place of interpretation in literary criticism and in the medical sciences.","PeriodicalId":41385,"journal":{"name":"Open Cultural Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Syphilis-Giving God? On the Interpretation of the Philistine’s Scourge\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Bächtold\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/culture-2022-0196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n To understand a text, or any other form of art work, as referring to a disease is not always obvious. This uncertainty, although confined to rare cases, nevertheless allows us to explore the limits and blind spots of certain frameworks proposed to think about the relationship between art and disease, notably Susan Sontag’s book Ilness as metaphor. In this article, I take a closer look at the calamity described in chapters 5 and 6 of the first book of Samuel and its various exegeses in the Western World. This calamity (still considered by many to be a bubonic plague), was not associated with the pandemic imaginary by ancient commentators, artists, and doctors, and it is only in modern times that medical diagnoses of the text change in this sense. I propose to see that these seemingly innocuous changes in diagnostic interpretations actually reflect deep changes in the relation between illness and divine agency. After a brief critical review of Susan Sontag’s writings on interpretation and their relationship to Ilness as Metaphor, I will proceed to trace the complex interpretation history of this calamity, before drawing observations about the place of interpretation in literary criticism and in the medical sciences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Cultural Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Cultural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2022-0196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2022-0196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将文本或任何其他形式的艺术作品理解为一种疾病并不总是显而易见的。这种不确定性虽然仅限于极少数情况,但却让我们得以探索某些思考艺术与疾病之间关系的框架的局限性和盲点,尤其是苏珊-桑塔格(Susan Sontag)的《作为隐喻的疾病》(Ilness as metaphor)一书。在本文中,我将仔细研究《撒母耳记》第一卷第五章和第六章中描述的灾难及其在西方世界的各种诠释。这场灾难(许多人仍然认为是鼠疫)并没有被古代的注释家、艺术家和医生与大流行病的想象联系起来,只是到了现代,对文本的医学诊断才在这个意义上发生了变化。我想说明的是,这些看似无害的诊断解释变化实际上反映了疾病与神力之间关系的深刻变化。在对苏珊-桑塔格(Susan Sontag)关于阐释的著作及其与 "作为隐喻的疾病"(Ilness as Metaphor)的关系进行简要的批判性回顾之后,我将继续追溯这场灾难的复杂阐释史,然后就阐释在文学批评和医学科学中的地位提出看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Syphilis-Giving God? On the Interpretation of the Philistine’s Scourge
To understand a text, or any other form of art work, as referring to a disease is not always obvious. This uncertainty, although confined to rare cases, nevertheless allows us to explore the limits and blind spots of certain frameworks proposed to think about the relationship between art and disease, notably Susan Sontag’s book Ilness as metaphor. In this article, I take a closer look at the calamity described in chapters 5 and 6 of the first book of Samuel and its various exegeses in the Western World. This calamity (still considered by many to be a bubonic plague), was not associated with the pandemic imaginary by ancient commentators, artists, and doctors, and it is only in modern times that medical diagnoses of the text change in this sense. I propose to see that these seemingly innocuous changes in diagnostic interpretations actually reflect deep changes in the relation between illness and divine agency. After a brief critical review of Susan Sontag’s writings on interpretation and their relationship to Ilness as Metaphor, I will proceed to trace the complex interpretation history of this calamity, before drawing observations about the place of interpretation in literary criticism and in the medical sciences.
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
Open Cultural Studies
Open Cultural Studies CULTURAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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