Izvorni znanstveni rad, Š. BlažKAV, Promjena Književnopovijesnoga, Narativa O Drugoj, Polovici, Stoljeća Primjer Interpretacije, Pripovjedne Proze, Simona Jenka, Dodatak ZA Objašnjenje, Simon Jenko, Jenka ističemo, prije svega Henricha
{"title":"Promjena književnopovijesnoga narativa o drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća: Primjer interpretacije pripovjedne proze Simona Jenka","authors":"Izvorni znanstveni rad, Š. BlažKAV, Promjena Književnopovijesnoga, Narativa O Drugoj, Polovici, Stoljeća Primjer Interpretacije, Pripovjedne Proze, Simona Jenka, Dodatak ZA Objašnjenje, Simon Jenko, Jenka ističemo, prije svega Henricha","doi":"10.22210/ur.2020.064.3_4/03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tilka , and Jeprški učitelj/The Teacher from Jeprca ). Jenko’s prose is analysed in greater detail by Matjaž Kmecl (1973) and France Bernik (1956). The critics interpret one of the stories, Spomini ( Memories ), from a completely different standpoint: Kmecl interprets it as the product of Jenko’s romantic bourgeois ideology influenced by European Romantic movements, and Bernik as the culmination of Jenko’s loyalty to realism or even as “counter-Romanticism”. Since the critics’ understanding of what romantic and realist implies is epistemologically so different, it seems unproductive to simply oppose their views. Hence, this paper contextualises the critics’ implicit conceptions of romantic and realist with two distinct literary historical traditions and narratives from the second half of the 19th century.","PeriodicalId":371506,"journal":{"name":"Umjetnost riječi: časopis za znanost o književnosti, izvedbenoj umjetnosti i filmu","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Umjetnost riječi: časopis za znanost o književnosti, izvedbenoj umjetnosti i filmu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22210/ur.2020.064.3_4/03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Tilka和Jeprški u itelj/来自Jeprca的教师)。matjajev Kmecl(1973)和France Bernik(1956)对Jenko的散文作了更详细的分析。评论家们从一个完全不同的角度解释了其中一个故事,《回忆》:Kmecl将其解释为Jenko受欧洲浪漫主义运动影响的浪漫资产阶级意识形态的产物,而Bernik则将其解释为Jenko对现实主义的忠诚的高潮,甚至是“反浪漫主义”。由于批评家对浪漫主义和现实主义的理解在认识论上是如此不同,简单地反对他们的观点似乎是徒劳的。因此,本文以19世纪下半叶两种截然不同的文学历史传统和叙事为背景,对批评家对浪漫主义和现实主义的含蓄概念进行了分析。
Promjena književnopovijesnoga narativa o drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća: Primjer interpretacije pripovjedne proze Simona Jenka
Tilka , and Jeprški učitelj/The Teacher from Jeprca ). Jenko’s prose is analysed in greater detail by Matjaž Kmecl (1973) and France Bernik (1956). The critics interpret one of the stories, Spomini ( Memories ), from a completely different standpoint: Kmecl interprets it as the product of Jenko’s romantic bourgeois ideology influenced by European Romantic movements, and Bernik as the culmination of Jenko’s loyalty to realism or even as “counter-Romanticism”. Since the critics’ understanding of what romantic and realist implies is epistemologically so different, it seems unproductive to simply oppose their views. Hence, this paper contextualises the critics’ implicit conceptions of romantic and realist with two distinct literary historical traditions and narratives from the second half of the 19th century.