首页> 外文学位 >T. S. Eliot's debt to J. M. Robertson: A consideration of their critical theories as represented in Eliot's 1919 'Athenaeum' reviews.
【24h】

T. S. Eliot's debt to J. M. Robertson: A consideration of their critical theories as represented in Eliot's 1919 'Athenaeum' reviews.

机译:T. S. Eliot对J. M. Robertson的欠债:以Eliot在1919年的“雅典娜”评论中所代表的批评理论为例。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The purpose of my thesis was to examine the critical relationship between T. S. and J. M. Robertson. Both writers were important figures in driving the evolution of Twentieth century literary theory toward scientific empiricism. But there has been no concerted effort to fully explore the connection between the two.;Given the lack of secondary scholarship in the field, my research was entirely primary documents, and it yielded surprising results. Both authors discerned a methodological failing in late Nineteenth century and early Twentieth century criticism. They argued that Romanticism had corrupted critical theory. Criticism needed to be redefined as a more scientific field grounded in empirical observations.;Both critics also discussed the interconnected relationship between art and criticism and how each is part-science and part-creative act. They argued that it was the critic's responsibility to identify the relationship and correctly apply it to critical theory.;But Robertson and Eliot disagreed about the critic's role in re-establishing artistic theory away from Romanticism. Looking closely at Elizabethan Literature, The Problem of Hamlet, "Hamlet and his Problems," "Tradition and the Individual Talent," I show that Eliot wrote criticism to adjust artistic theory toward scientific empiricism and Robertson settled for changing critical theory. Their different objectives affected the way they wrote criticism and the way subsequent scholars have read their criticism.
机译:本论文的目的是研究T. S.和J. M. Robertson之间的关键关系。两位作家都是推动20世纪文学理论向科学经验主义发展的重要人物。但是还没有齐心协力来全面探索两者之间的联系。鉴于该领域缺乏中学奖学金,我的研究完全是主要文献,并且产生了令人惊讶的结果。两位作者都发现了19世纪后期和20世纪初批评的方法论失败。他们认为浪漫主义已经破坏了批判理论。批评需要重新定义为基于经验观察的更科学的领域。两位评论家还讨论了艺术与批评之间的相互联系,以及两者分别是部分科学行为和部分创造行为。他们认为,确定这种关系并将其正确地应用于批判理论是批评家的责任。但是罗伯逊和艾略特不同意批评家在摆脱浪漫主义的基础上重建艺术理论的作用。仔细观察伊丽莎白时代的文学作品,《哈姆雷特问题》,《哈姆雷特及其问题》,《传统与个人才华》,我发现艾略特写了批评以使艺术理论适应科学经验主义,而罗伯逊则选择改变批判理论。他们的不同目标影响了他们发表批评的方式以及后来的学者阅读批评的方式。

著录项

  • 作者

    Brammer, Jacky L.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.;

  • 授予单位 The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.;
  • 学科 Literature English.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 66 p.
  • 总页数 66
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号