悲剧中的回顾阅读

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
C. Trinacty
{"title":"悲剧中的回顾阅读","authors":"C. Trinacty","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2017.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conclusions matter in Senecan prose and poetry. At the conclusion of his epistles, Seneca often includes an unexpected quote or alters his subject-matter in a surprising manner—a technique that Fowler has helpfully classified as an example of ‘Romantic Irony’ in the vein of Heine or selected Horatian odes. His dialogues display a similar penchant for such endings, e.g. the post-mortem speech of Cremutius Cordus to his daughter, Marcia, in the finale of the Consolatio ad Marciam (Dial. 6.26.2-7). Seneca's tragedies likewise conclude in a beguiling fashion, ‘Part of the dramatic force of the Senecan ending is its avoidance of any note of easy resolution; it serves rather to sharpen and/or problematize the central issues of the particular play.’ As a way to further encourage the reader to question or recognize major themes of the play, Seneca's conclusions feature an intertext that casts these themes in a different light or elicits metapoetic commentary. These intertexts stress ideas and language important to the particular play, especially those found in the prologue, in order to create a type of ring-composition to the tragedy as a whole. This paper investigates these intertexts and indicates not only how they operate on an inter/intratextual level, but also why Seneca would think of the texts that he does at the conclusion of his tragedies. Seneca looks back to some of his major literary influences at the conclusions of his plays (Ovid, Horace, and Virgil unsurprisingly; Seneca the Elder perhaps more surprisingly), which reveals that these moments are diagnostic of his intertextual method in general. The larger situational or generic context of the sources shade the words uttered by Senecan protagonists, but Seneca stresses the tragic impact of such intertextual echoes again and again; Seneca tragicus surely is a pessimistic reader of the Augustan tradition. The reiteration of similar language and imagery throughout the play ‘primes’ the reader to recognize the intertext at the play's conclusion—thus intratextual repetitions signpost the intertextual reference. Seneca wants these references to be noticed; he promotes a retrospective reading technique in which these intertexts recast language and themes found earlier in the play, now vis-à-vis the literary and rhetorical source material. In creating such dense verbal connections, he encourages further contemplation of the major motifs of the tragedies and inherently endorses the position of his plays as ‘open’ texts that beg for further supplementation by further reading and rereading, again and again.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"28 1","pages":"175 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RETROSPECTIVE READING IN SENECAN TRAGEDY\",\"authors\":\"C. Trinacty\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/rmu.2017.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Conclusions matter in Senecan prose and poetry. At the conclusion of his epistles, Seneca often includes an unexpected quote or alters his subject-matter in a surprising manner—a technique that Fowler has helpfully classified as an example of ‘Romantic Irony’ in the vein of Heine or selected Horatian odes. His dialogues display a similar penchant for such endings, e.g. the post-mortem speech of Cremutius Cordus to his daughter, Marcia, in the finale of the Consolatio ad Marciam (Dial. 6.26.2-7). Seneca's tragedies likewise conclude in a beguiling fashion, ‘Part of the dramatic force of the Senecan ending is its avoidance of any note of easy resolution; it serves rather to sharpen and/or problematize the central issues of the particular play.’ As a way to further encourage the reader to question or recognize major themes of the play, Seneca's conclusions feature an intertext that casts these themes in a different light or elicits metapoetic commentary. These intertexts stress ideas and language important to the particular play, especially those found in the prologue, in order to create a type of ring-composition to the tragedy as a whole. This paper investigates these intertexts and indicates not only how they operate on an inter/intratextual level, but also why Seneca would think of the texts that he does at the conclusion of his tragedies. Seneca looks back to some of his major literary influences at the conclusions of his plays (Ovid, Horace, and Virgil unsurprisingly; Seneca the Elder perhaps more surprisingly), which reveals that these moments are diagnostic of his intertextual method in general. The larger situational or generic context of the sources shade the words uttered by Senecan protagonists, but Seneca stresses the tragic impact of such intertextual echoes again and again; Seneca tragicus surely is a pessimistic reader of the Augustan tradition. The reiteration of similar language and imagery throughout the play ‘primes’ the reader to recognize the intertext at the play's conclusion—thus intratextual repetitions signpost the intertextual reference. Seneca wants these references to be noticed; he promotes a retrospective reading technique in which these intertexts recast language and themes found earlier in the play, now vis-à-vis the literary and rhetorical source material. In creating such dense verbal connections, he encourages further contemplation of the major motifs of the tragedies and inherently endorses the position of his plays as ‘open’ texts that beg for further supplementation by further reading and rereading, again and again.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"175 - 196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2017.9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2017.9","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

结论在塞内加散文和诗歌中很重要。在他的书信的结尾,塞内加经常包括一个意想不到的引用,或者以一种令人惊讶的方式改变他的主题——福勒将这种技巧归类为“浪漫讽刺”的一个例子,与海涅或贺拉斯的颂歌相似。他的对话也表现出对这样的结局的类似偏好,例如,在《安慰与玛西亚》(Dial. 6.26.2-7)的结尾,克里穆提乌斯·科多斯对他的女儿玛西亚的死后讲话。塞内加的悲剧也同样以一种令人迷惑的方式结束,“塞内加悲剧结局的部分戏剧性力量在于它避免了任何轻松解决的注意;它的作用是使特定戏剧的中心问题变得尖锐和/或成问题。作为进一步鼓励读者质疑或认识戏剧主题的一种方式,塞内卡的结论以互文为特色,以不同的方式投射这些主题,或引出元诗歌的评论。这些互文强调了对特定戏剧重要的思想和语言,特别是在序言中发现的那些,以便为整个悲剧创造一种环构图。本文对这些互文进行了研究,不仅指出了它们是如何在文本间/文本内的层面上运作的,而且还指出了塞内加为什么会在悲剧结束时想到他所做的文本。塞内加回顾了他的一些主要的文学影响在他的戏剧的结论(奥维德,贺拉斯和维吉尔不出所料;老塞内加也许更令人惊讶),这揭示了这些时刻是他互文方法的诊断。更大的情境或来源的一般背景遮蔽了塞内加主人公所说的话,但塞内加强调这种互文呼应的悲剧性影响一次又一次;塞内加无疑是奥古斯都传统的悲观读者。在整个戏剧中,相似的语言和意象的重复“启动”读者在戏剧结尾时认识到互文——因此,文本内重复为互文参考指明了方向。塞内加想让人们注意到这些引用;他提倡一种回顾式的阅读技巧,在这种阅读技巧中,这些互文改写了戏剧早期发现的语言和主题,现在看到-à-vis文学和修辞的原始材料。在创造这种密集的语言联系时,他鼓励人们进一步思考悲剧的主要母题,并从本质上支持他的戏剧作为“开放”文本的地位,要求通过进一步阅读和重读来进一步补充,一遍又一遍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RETROSPECTIVE READING IN SENECAN TRAGEDY
Conclusions matter in Senecan prose and poetry. At the conclusion of his epistles, Seneca often includes an unexpected quote or alters his subject-matter in a surprising manner—a technique that Fowler has helpfully classified as an example of ‘Romantic Irony’ in the vein of Heine or selected Horatian odes. His dialogues display a similar penchant for such endings, e.g. the post-mortem speech of Cremutius Cordus to his daughter, Marcia, in the finale of the Consolatio ad Marciam (Dial. 6.26.2-7). Seneca's tragedies likewise conclude in a beguiling fashion, ‘Part of the dramatic force of the Senecan ending is its avoidance of any note of easy resolution; it serves rather to sharpen and/or problematize the central issues of the particular play.’ As a way to further encourage the reader to question or recognize major themes of the play, Seneca's conclusions feature an intertext that casts these themes in a different light or elicits metapoetic commentary. These intertexts stress ideas and language important to the particular play, especially those found in the prologue, in order to create a type of ring-composition to the tragedy as a whole. This paper investigates these intertexts and indicates not only how they operate on an inter/intratextual level, but also why Seneca would think of the texts that he does at the conclusion of his tragedies. Seneca looks back to some of his major literary influences at the conclusions of his plays (Ovid, Horace, and Virgil unsurprisingly; Seneca the Elder perhaps more surprisingly), which reveals that these moments are diagnostic of his intertextual method in general. The larger situational or generic context of the sources shade the words uttered by Senecan protagonists, but Seneca stresses the tragic impact of such intertextual echoes again and again; Seneca tragicus surely is a pessimistic reader of the Augustan tradition. The reiteration of similar language and imagery throughout the play ‘primes’ the reader to recognize the intertext at the play's conclusion—thus intratextual repetitions signpost the intertextual reference. Seneca wants these references to be noticed; he promotes a retrospective reading technique in which these intertexts recast language and themes found earlier in the play, now vis-à-vis the literary and rhetorical source material. In creating such dense verbal connections, he encourages further contemplation of the major motifs of the tragedies and inherently endorses the position of his plays as ‘open’ texts that beg for further supplementation by further reading and rereading, again and again.
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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