‘Das furchtbar-schöne Gorgonenhaupt des Klassischen’: Deutsche Antikenbilder (1755–1875) by Lorella Bosco (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
278 Reviews of certain key texts?Werther, forexample?will seem too brief to some readers. And it is a pity that the altogether justifiable emphasis on drama means that Goethe's Sturm und Drang lyrics are given only incidental coverage. This volume nevertheless contains some lively and engaging writing that incorporates the latest research and conveys some of the complexities of evaluating this highly influential corpus of liter? ary and critical work. University of Exeter Lesley Sharpe 'Das furchtbar-schoneGorgonenhaupt des Klassischen': Deutsche Antikenbilder {1755? 1875). By Lorella Bosco. Wiirzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann. 2004. 400 pp. ?49.50. ISBN 3-8260-2730-2. This very long book, originally a doctoral dissertation from the Freie Universitat Berlin, can best be described as a survey of the development of German Hellenism from Winckelmann to Nietzsche, with a focus on three particular areas. These are, first,the growing prominence, fromthe Romantics onwards, ofthe dark side of classi? cal antiquity, this story culminating in Nietzsche's concept of the Dionysian. Second, the author examines the development of classical education and the growing gulf between its normative and its scholarly {wissenschaftlich) aspirations, with sections devoted to such figures as Friedrich Creuzer and Karl Otfried Muller, and another to the reception of Die Geburt der Tragodieby Wilamowitz. Third, the book contains two chapters of conventional literary analysis, one of them dealing with Kleist, espe? cially his Penthesilea, the other with a selection of pertinent works by Heine, these authors being selected for their use of classical motifs in a manner sharply divergent from the Winckelmannian ideal. Despite containing a great deal of sound scholarship, the book makes forlaborious reading. This is partly a matter of content. There are several distinct topics here, but, instead of synthesizing them into a single story,Bosco has given us a somewhat random series of self-contained studies offiguresand readings of individual works. Frequently the reader senses that she is seeking not so much to reframe or reinterpret what is in essence a fairlyfamiliar story but rather, and merely, to cover a certain amount of territory.The discussions of Kleist and of Nietzsche, for example, have little to do with each other, causing this reader to wonder if they belong in the same book at all. The relative weight accorded to differentparts often seems arbitrary: why sixty pages on Kleist but only eleven on Holderlin? Similarly, Bosco prefaces her Heine chapter with a twelve-page outline of classical scholarship in the Biedermeier generation, but she fails to explain its relevance to Heine. Besides the content, however, the problem also concerns the book's scholarly ambition. Rarely if ever do the discussions break new ground; indeed, a large percentage of the book is composed of quotations from secondary sources, which are passed on without comment. Rarely if ever does Bosco seek to bring out differences of interpretation, preferring an exegetic mode of expo? sition. While much industry has undoubtedly gone into this volume, it is hard to see how it offersits readers anything that they could not have learnt from its sources. Queen's University, Canada David Pugh ...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».