MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2153919348 · doi:10.1353/egp.0.0086

<i>Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry</i> (review)

2009· article· en· W2153919348 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gernot Wieland

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of English and Germanic Philology · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval Literature and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRhetoricRhetorical questionPoetryLiteratureVernacularTerminologyArtHistoryPhilosophyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry Gernot Wieland Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry. By Janie Steen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Pp. xii + 237. $70. How did Latin rhetoric, and especially the notorious rhetorical figures, influence Old English poetry? This is the question Steen attempts to answer in this most ambitious book. She does so in an Introduction and six chapters. The Introduction concentrates on clarifying the difference between the "native tradition," that is, Anglo-Saxon poetic technique, and "Latin rhetoric," the poetic techniques, and primarily the rhetorical figures, introduced into Anglo-Saxon England with the conversion to Christianity. Chapter 1 moves to a general examination of the knowledge of Latin rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England, and Steen finds that very few classical rhetorical works survive in manuscripts and that therefore in all likelihood formal rhetoric was not taught. Rhetorical figures, however, were known, less as part of rhetoric and more as part of exegesis and grammar, and they were almost certainly studied in conjunction with Christian-Latin poets such as Juvencus, Arator, and Sedulius. The rhetorical figures which do appear in Old English poetry therefore seem to have "seeped" into the vernacular from the Christian-Latin poets taught in Anglo-Saxon classrooms. Chapter 2 begins with the realization that "rhetorical terminology is a potential minefield" (p. 21). Steen rightly sets out to defuse some of these mines by juxtaposing a passage from Bede's Latin verse Vita Cuthberti to one chosen from the Cynewulfian Andreas and by naming, and commenting on, the rhetorical patterns she finds in each. With the [End Page 119] terminological groundwork laid, she can move into chapter 3 in which she traces the rhetorical "seeping" from Lactantius's Carmen de ave Phoenice to the Old English Phoenix. Steen shows that the Old English poem is replete with rhetorical effects in the same passages in which they abound in the Latin poem. What's more, the Old English poet is not content with simply translating the Latin rhetorical figures but also draws on the full repertoire of the Old English poetic tradition in order to achieve a similar effect in the Old English poem as Lactantius had done in the Latin. Chapter 4 shows a less successful adaptation of a Latin work, namely Bede's or Alcuin's De die iudicii and its Old English translation Judgement Day II. With his great faithfulness to the Latin, the poet does reproduce some of the Latin rhetorical figures, but on the whole the Old English version does not achieve the same poetic vitality as the Latin original. The poems examined in chapter 5, however, namely Riddles 35 and 40, both of them translations of riddles written in Latin by Aldhelm, do achieve that poetic vibrancy, though in different ways: the translator of Riddle 35 takes great pains to stay close to the native poetic tradition, while the translator of Riddle 40 is more Latinate by, for example, allowing classical names such as Vulcanus and Zephyrus stand as metonyms for "fire" and "wind." Chapter 6, finally, presents select passages from Cynewulf's poetry and argues for a most successful melding of native and Latinate poetic traditions in the uses of anaphora, paronomasia, rhyme, and simile. There can be little doubt that Steen is correct in arguing that the rhetorical figures the Old English poets either learned in school or read in the sources they translated, paraphrased, or imitated had an influence on the way they wrote in the vernacular. The difficulty lies in determining the exact influence, and Steen throughout is cautious in showing that, for example, Cynewulf "may" have been inspired by Arator's imagery, or "may" have drawn on Latin-inspired homilies (both on p. 123). This caution, however, does weaken the overall argument somewhat, since it removes the certainty that in any given passage the Old English poets drew on Latin rhetorical figures, and leaves no more than a possibility, especially when the supposed Latin rhetorical influence is completely translated into poetic elements from the native tradition. Moreover, the very act of translating often means that rhetorical elements present in...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,927
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,325

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,216
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of English and Germanic PhilologyMême sujetMedieval Literature and HistoryTravaux en français237 207