五幕悲剧中的言语分布(古典主义与浪漫主义的一个问题)

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Boris I. Yarkho
{"title":"五幕悲剧中的言语分布(古典主义与浪漫主义的一个问题)","authors":"Boris I. Yarkho","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2019-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following essay2 is methodological in the strictest sense of the word. While the study itself deals with a very narrow subject, it should demonstrate a method (methodos) for resolving a major problem in the comparison of broad literary entities, in this case, providing a scientific basis for a distinction between Classicism and Romanticism. Should this method turn out to be long and arduous, involving labour-intensive work, then I have embraced it because the quick method, which has been used up till now, is clearly not fit for purpose. True, our literary experience very often grants us the capacity to distinguish between different entities (school, authorial style, genre, epoch) through an immediate feeling; but when we try to objectify this feeling, to give it a scientific definition, we are very rarely successful. So, we can distinguish a typical work of Classicism from a typical romantic piece, but the essence of Classicism and Romanticism is still awaiting definition. The presently prevailing deductive method of definition is based on the idea that intuition can pluck out a single feature and designate it the »essence«, »nature«, das Wesen of Romanticism; at best, several intuitively selected features are elevated to the rank of »basic","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2019-0002","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speech Distribution in Five-Act Tragedies (A Question of Classicism and Romanticism)\",\"authors\":\"Boris I. Yarkho\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jlt-2019-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The following essay2 is methodological in the strictest sense of the word. While the study itself deals with a very narrow subject, it should demonstrate a method (methodos) for resolving a major problem in the comparison of broad literary entities, in this case, providing a scientific basis for a distinction between Classicism and Romanticism. Should this method turn out to be long and arduous, involving labour-intensive work, then I have embraced it because the quick method, which has been used up till now, is clearly not fit for purpose. True, our literary experience very often grants us the capacity to distinguish between different entities (school, authorial style, genre, epoch) through an immediate feeling; but when we try to objectify this feeling, to give it a scientific definition, we are very rarely successful. So, we can distinguish a typical work of Classicism from a typical romantic piece, but the essence of Classicism and Romanticism is still awaiting definition. The presently prevailing deductive method of definition is based on the idea that intuition can pluck out a single feature and designate it the »essence«, »nature«, das Wesen of Romanticism; at best, several intuitively selected features are elevated to the rank of »basic\",\"PeriodicalId\":42872,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2019-0002\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2019-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2019-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

以下文章2是最严格意义上的方法论。虽然这项研究本身涉及一个非常狭窄的主题,但它应该展示一种方法来解决广泛文学实体比较中的一个主要问题,在这种情况下,为区分古典主义和浪漫主义提供科学依据。如果这种方法是漫长而艰巨的,涉及劳动密集型工作,那么我接受了它,因为一直使用到现在的快速方法显然不符合目的。诚然,我们的文学经验往往赋予我们通过直接感受来区分不同实体(流派、作者风格、流派、时代)的能力;但当我们试图将这种感觉物化,给它一个科学的定义时,我们很少成功。因此,我们可以区分一部典型的古典主义作品和一部典型浪漫主义作品,但古典主义和浪漫主义的本质仍有待界定。目前流行的演绎定义方法是基于这样一种观点,即直觉可以提取出一个单一的特征,并将其指定为浪漫主义的“本质”、“自然”;充其量,一些直观选择的功能被提升到»基本
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Speech Distribution in Five-Act Tragedies (A Question of Classicism and Romanticism)
The following essay2 is methodological in the strictest sense of the word. While the study itself deals with a very narrow subject, it should demonstrate a method (methodos) for resolving a major problem in the comparison of broad literary entities, in this case, providing a scientific basis for a distinction between Classicism and Romanticism. Should this method turn out to be long and arduous, involving labour-intensive work, then I have embraced it because the quick method, which has been used up till now, is clearly not fit for purpose. True, our literary experience very often grants us the capacity to distinguish between different entities (school, authorial style, genre, epoch) through an immediate feeling; but when we try to objectify this feeling, to give it a scientific definition, we are very rarely successful. So, we can distinguish a typical work of Classicism from a typical romantic piece, but the essence of Classicism and Romanticism is still awaiting definition. The presently prevailing deductive method of definition is based on the idea that intuition can pluck out a single feature and designate it the »essence«, »nature«, das Wesen of Romanticism; at best, several intuitively selected features are elevated to the rank of »basic
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
Journal of Literary Theory
Journal of Literary Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
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