Molière and Saint-Evremond

PMLA ◽  
1961 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-204
Author(s):  
Quentin M. Hope
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Modern Literature ◽  
Strong Affinity ◽  
Dramatic Criticism ◽  
Full Expression ◽  
Ancient Literature ◽  
History Of ◽  
Critical Mind ◽  
Comedie Italienne

Saint-Evremond has earned a place in the history of seventeenth-century dramatic criticism as a fervent admirer of Corneille and a hostile critic of Racine. His strong affinity for Molière is less well-known, because he wrote very little about him. Not considering himself a professional author, he never felt the need to give full expression to his opinions on literature, or on any subject. In his youth he was primarily a railleur; as literary criticism, his first work, La Comédie des académistes, is a pungent satirical attack on pretension, triviality, and excessive concern with minutiae of vocabulary and technique. The satirical impulse remains present, in a more subdued form, in most of his later works. He probes into the weaknesses of ancient and modern literatures more frequently than he celebrates their merits. His discussions of authors he particularly admires, Montaigne, Voiture, Malherbe, Cervantes, are very brief. Most of his critical essays are directed against aberrations in judgment, insufficiencies, and misconceptions. Dissertation sur Alexandre, Sur les caractères des tragédies, A un auteur qui me demandait mon sentiment d'une pièce où l'héroïne ne faisait que se lamenter, Discours sur les historiens français, Sur nos comédies, De la comédie italienne, Sur les opéras, Observations sur le goüt et le discernement des français—all these are essays emphasizing various weaknesses in modern literature and taste. Réflexions sur nos traducteurs and Du merveilleux qui se trouve dans les poèmes des anciens are equally critical of certain aspects of ancient literature, while De la tragédie ancienne et moderne is an attack on both. It is true that a large part of his criticism of the drama deals with Corneille, whom he admired more than any other author, but his defense of Corneille often takes the form of an attack against the corrupt modern taste which has turned against him. His searching and critical mind preferred to contradict a generally accepted opinion, to reveal the hidden weaknesses of a universally admired work, rather than to define the qualities of the authors it enjoyed.

Introduction: remapping early modern literature

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Augustine
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
John Milton ◽  
Early Modern Literature ◽  
John Dryden ◽  
Modern Literature ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Andrew Marvell ◽  
History Of ◽  
Century Literature

The argument of this book follows two main themes: the first has to do with periodicity; the second with politics, especially as a framework within which to view seventeenth-century literature. This chapter maps the disciplinary paradigms which have long produced a view of the seventeenth century saturated by high-definition contrasts: between the earlier and later Stuart periods, but also between factions and ideologies. It then asks what it would look like to write the history of seventeenth-century literature anew, to tell a story about imaginative and polemical writing in this age that remained open to accident and unevenness, to contradiction and uncertainty. Giving illustrative consideration to John Dryden, Andrew Marvell, and John Milton, the chapter begins to suggest some new ways of conceiving how these writers might relate to one other and to the politics and aesthetics of a long seventeenth century.

Edmund Bolton's The Cabanet Royal: A Belated Reply to Sidney's Apology for Poetry

1967 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 159-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Blackburn
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
British Museum ◽  
Charles I ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Learned Societies ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
History Of

Few documents relevant to the history of literary criticism during the early seventeenth century have escaped the searching eyes of scholars of the period. Edmund Bolton's The Cabanet Royal (British Museum MS. Royal 18A. LXXI.) is, however, one of those rarities. Written in 1627 as an attempt to interest King Charles I in the ‘Academ Roial’ which Bolton first proposed during the reign of James, the manuscript has previously been noted only by historians of England's learned societies. Yet it is less a prospectus for that academy than a discourse on the arts, including, most importantly, a substantial comparison of history and poetry clearly designed as a corrective to Sir Philip Sidney's harsh treatment of historians in his Apology for Poetry.

A Neglected Passage on the Three Unities of the French Classic Drama

PMLA ◽  
1908 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-315
Author(s):  
H. Carrington Lancaster
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Modern Literature ◽  
Critical Research ◽  
Half Century ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Action Time ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

The need for critical research in at least one field of modern literature is exemplified by the lack of exact information regarding the establishment on the French stage of the three dramatic unities that characterized so markedly many pieces of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although our knowledge of the history of these unities has been increased by several works that have recently appeared, a number of facts concerning them remain to be determined, as Dannheisser, the chief authority on the subject, has clearly shown. Thus, while demonstrating that these unities of action, time, and place were not imposed at one time, but, developing separately, came only after a half century into general acceptance and a rigorously narrow form, he has left unfixed the date at which they were first singled out in seventeenth century France as the distinguishing marks of the classic drama.

SYAIR DIRAJA MELAYU PERAK-JOHOR ERA KONTEMPORARI: SATU PERBANDINGAN KEPENGARANGAN (Royal Syair in the Contemporary Era of Perak-Johor: Comparison of Authorship)

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 290-307
Author(s):  
ROSNANI IBRAHIM ◽  
MUAMMAR GHADDAFI HANAFIAH ◽  
SHAIFU BAHRI MD RADZI
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Comparative Methods ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Modern Literature ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 19Th Century

The 16th century to the end of the 19th century, storytelling and praise of the sultan became the idea of authorship. This storytelling and praise are conveyed by making poetry his platform. The last poem to record the history of this Royal group was the Syair Riwayat Yang Amat Mulia Tengku Ampuan Besar Pahang (1953). However, such influence is less used when modern literature develops. Western powers bring a new diversity of forms and genres in creation. After 56 years, two works have emerged, Syair Sultan Azlan Shah Berjiwa Rakyat (2009), Mohd Ibrahim bin Said and Syair DYMM Sultan Ibrahim Ibni Almarhum Sultan Iskandar (2018) by Maskiah binti Masrom in this contemporary era. Kings and sultans became objects of storytelling in both works. The question is, what are the scopes or criteria that are the ideas of their authorship? The scope or criterion that became the idea of authorship used by both authors in presenting storytelling about their rulers. Both texts of the Royal poetry were sampled. Comparative methods are applied to examine their influence in presenting the idea of Royal history recordings in the contemporary era. Intrinsically research methods on study samples were also used. The findings found that the king's biography became the scope or criterion that became the idea of authorship for both authors in praise and upholding his king. Keywords: Literary criticism; Peering; Authorship; Royal syair; Contemporary syair

Matthew Arnold and the Crisis of Classicism: An Introduction

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 27-39
Author(s):  
William E. Buckler
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
Matthew Arnold ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
History Of ◽  
Critical Mind ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
Working Hypotheses

Reflecting on the extreme difficulty of the practice of literary criticism as it was invoked by the conception and composition of Literature and Dogma, Matthew Arnold wrote the following sentence: “It calls into play the highest requisites for the study of letters; – great and wide acquaintance with the history of the human mind, knowledge of the manner in which men have thought, of their way of using words and what they mean by them, delicacy of perception and quick tact, and, besides all these, a favourable moment and the ‘Zeitgeist.’” This sentence is a mirror, a language-metaphor, of Arnold's critical mind. Without verbal fanfare, with the utmost directness and simplicity of statement, it encompasses its subject in an original, relevant, and satisfying way. The “highest requisites” for the literary critic are adequate working hypotheses about the human mind – not a formal philosophy or theory of mind, but a set of working hypotheses, empirically acquired and tested and always subject to empirically justified revision, that are both practical and trustworthy; genuine sophistication in the subtleties of language, its nuances, conventions, and diplomacies – again not scientific or philosophical expertise, but a knowledge acquired through experience of historical usage and of the tendency of language to contract and expand itself and to alter its character and significance as it moves in and out of differing contexts; a sensibility diat is especially responsive to literary fact and moves with practiced ease and dependability among literary phenomena; that degree of self-awareness that recognizes the peculiar aptness and applicability of one's talents to the needs and possibilities of one's era. Add to these “highest requisites for the study of letters” only a very few of Arnold's methodological principles – concentration on the centrality of the subject or action to the way in which a piece of imaginative literature actually works, reliance on “inward evidence, direct evidence” rather than on “outward evidence, indirect evidence,” recognition that “poets receive their distinctive character, not from their subject, but from their application to that subject of the ideas …

Muscovy and the Tatars

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-431
Author(s):  
Bulat R. Rakhimzianov
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
The Political ◽  
East European ◽  
Central Eurasia ◽  
History Of ◽  
Mutual Relations ◽  
Forest Line ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article explores relations between Muscovy and the so-called Later Golden Horde successor states that existed during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries on the territory of Desht-i Qipchaq (the Qipchaq Steppe, a part of the East European steppe bounded roughly by the Oskol and Tobol rivers, the steppe-forest line, and the Caspian and Aral Seas). As a part of, and later a successor to, the Juchid ulus (also known as the Golden Horde), Muscovy adopted a number of its political and social institutions. The most crucial events in the almost six-century-long history of relations between Muscovy and the Tatars (13–18th centuries) were the Mongol invasion of the Northern, Eastern and parts of the Southern Rus’ principalities between 1237 and 1241, and the Muscovite annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates between 1552 and 1556. According to the model proposed here, the Tatars began as the dominant partner in these mutual relations; however, from the beginning of the seventeenth century this role was gradually inverted. Indicators of a change in the relationship between the Muscovite grand principality and the Golden Horde can be found in the diplomatic contacts between Muscovy and the Tatar khanates. The main goal of the article is to reveal the changing position of Muscovy within the system of the Later Golden Horde successor states. An additional goal is to revisit the role of the Tatar khanates in the political history of Central Eurasia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

A Critical Study of Violent Asphyxial Deaths with Ancient Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalpana Denge ◽  
Rupali Gatfane
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Modern Literature ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Ancient Literature ◽  
Modern Knowledge ◽  
Ancient Texts

Asphyxia is most commonly appearing as a major cause of unnatural deaths. Scattered references can be reviewed in ancient literature regarding asphyxial death. Description of various signs of asphyxial death is given briefly in ancient texts and it is worthwhile to study them with the help of modern science. In ancient literature these asphyxial deaths are described briefly as Kanthapeedan, Dhoomopahat and Udakahat. In modern literature asphyxial deaths are described as hanging, strangulation, suffocation and drowning which occur in homicidal or suicidal purpose or accidental. Viewing these references, asphyxial deaths are studied comprehensively with the object of highlighting it with the help of modern knowledge. Thus present article deals with exploration of ancient references of asphyxial death with the help of contemporary science.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Cultural History ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
Cultural Representations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Television Film ◽  
Popular Image

The introductory chapter discusses the popular image of the ‘Romantic mad poet’ in television, film, theatre, fiction, the history of literary criticism, and the intellectual history of the twentieth century and its countercultures, including anti-psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Existing literary-historical work on related topics is assessed, before the introduction goes on to suggest why some problems or difficulties in writing about this subject might be productive for further cultural history. The introduction also considers at length the legacy of Michel Foucault’s Folie et Déraison (1961), and the continued viability of Foucauldian methods and concepts for examining literary-cultural representations of madness after the half-century of critiques and controversies following that book’s publication. Methodological discussion both draws on and critiques the models of historical sociology used by George Becker and Sander L. Gilman to discuss genius, madness, deviance, and stereotype in the nineteenth century. A note on terminology concludes the introduction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document