文本腐败 "的腐败:还原 C.S. 刘易斯的批判讽刺作品

Q3 Arts and Humanities Journal of Inklings Studies Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.3366/ink.2024.0215
Joe Ricke
{"title":"文本腐败 \"的腐败:还原 C.S. 刘易斯的批判讽刺作品","authors":"Joe Ricke","doi":"10.3366/ink.2024.0215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines in detail a C.S. Lewis letter, published in The Times Literary Supplement that was, in fact, an example of ‘mock-criticism’ (as in ‘mock-epic’), being a satiric parody of an argument made by eminent Shakespeare scholar John Dover Wilson. Lewis published his ‘minor disagreement’ in March 1950, to which Dover Wilson responded with appreciation for Lewis's good humour but continued disagreement on the point of contention – that Shakespeare would ever include lines of verse in a section of his prose. By close analysis, the essay demonstrates how the editor of The Collected Letters inadvertently ‘corrupted’ Lewis's original by his formatting and editorial changes. Three versions of the letter are compared to show the specifics of the corruption. Further, Lewis's long critical encounter with Dover Wilson from the late 1920s onward as well as his little-known role as a textual criticism scholar at Oxford are demonstrated to provide the context for interpreting and appreciating the letter. Finally, two other Lewis letters, previously pointed out by Stephanie Derrick (neither published in The Collected Letters) are presented from the Dover Wilson archives as evidence of the cordial scholarly relationship that eventually developed between the two. The essay shows Lewis as a clever, thorough, combative, yet friendly scholar (though perhaps not always all at the same time) engaging in and, in fact, initiating important discussions with perhaps the most significant Shakespearean textual scholar of his time.","PeriodicalId":37069,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Inklings Studies","volume":"185 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Text Corruptions’ Corruption: Restoring C.S. Lewis's Critical Satire\",\"authors\":\"Joe Ricke\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/ink.2024.0215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay examines in detail a C.S. Lewis letter, published in The Times Literary Supplement that was, in fact, an example of ‘mock-criticism’ (as in ‘mock-epic’), being a satiric parody of an argument made by eminent Shakespeare scholar John Dover Wilson. Lewis published his ‘minor disagreement’ in March 1950, to which Dover Wilson responded with appreciation for Lewis's good humour but continued disagreement on the point of contention – that Shakespeare would ever include lines of verse in a section of his prose. By close analysis, the essay demonstrates how the editor of The Collected Letters inadvertently ‘corrupted’ Lewis's original by his formatting and editorial changes. Three versions of the letter are compared to show the specifics of the corruption. Further, Lewis's long critical encounter with Dover Wilson from the late 1920s onward as well as his little-known role as a textual criticism scholar at Oxford are demonstrated to provide the context for interpreting and appreciating the letter. Finally, two other Lewis letters, previously pointed out by Stephanie Derrick (neither published in The Collected Letters) are presented from the Dover Wilson archives as evidence of the cordial scholarly relationship that eventually developed between the two. The essay shows Lewis as a clever, thorough, combative, yet friendly scholar (though perhaps not always all at the same time) engaging in and, in fact, initiating important discussions with perhaps the most significant Shakespearean textual scholar of his time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Inklings Studies\",\"volume\":\"185 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Inklings Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2024.0215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Inklings Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2024.0215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章详细研究了 C.S. 刘易斯发表在《泰晤士报文学副刊》上的一封信,这封信实际上是 "嘲讽批评"("mock-epic "中的 "嘲讽")的一个例子,是对著名莎士比亚学者约翰-多佛-威尔逊(John Dover Wilson)的论点的讽刺性模仿。刘易斯于 1950 年 3 月发表了他的 "小分歧",多佛-威尔逊在回复中对刘易斯的幽默表示赞赏,但对争论的焦点--莎士比亚是否会在其散文中加入诗句--仍持不同意见。通过仔细分析,文章展示了《书信集》的编辑是如何通过格式和编辑上的改动无意中 "损坏 "了刘易斯的原文。文章比较了该信的三个版本,以展示 "损坏 "的具体细节。此外,还展示了刘易斯自 20 世纪 20 年代末以来与多佛-威尔逊长期的批评接触,以及他作为牛津大学文本批评学者鲜为人知的角色,为解读和欣赏这封信提供了背景。最后,文章还介绍了多佛-威尔逊档案中的另外两封刘易斯信件,这两封信之前由斯蒂芬妮-德里克指出过(均未在《书信集》中发表),作为两人之间最终发展出的友好学术关系的证据。文章显示,刘易斯是一位聪明、透彻、好斗但又友好的学者(尽管可能并不总是同时如此),他参与了或许是他那个时代最重要的莎士比亚文本学者的重要讨论,并在事实上发起了这些讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Text Corruptions’ Corruption: Restoring C.S. Lewis's Critical Satire
This essay examines in detail a C.S. Lewis letter, published in The Times Literary Supplement that was, in fact, an example of ‘mock-criticism’ (as in ‘mock-epic’), being a satiric parody of an argument made by eminent Shakespeare scholar John Dover Wilson. Lewis published his ‘minor disagreement’ in March 1950, to which Dover Wilson responded with appreciation for Lewis's good humour but continued disagreement on the point of contention – that Shakespeare would ever include lines of verse in a section of his prose. By close analysis, the essay demonstrates how the editor of The Collected Letters inadvertently ‘corrupted’ Lewis's original by his formatting and editorial changes. Three versions of the letter are compared to show the specifics of the corruption. Further, Lewis's long critical encounter with Dover Wilson from the late 1920s onward as well as his little-known role as a textual criticism scholar at Oxford are demonstrated to provide the context for interpreting and appreciating the letter. Finally, two other Lewis letters, previously pointed out by Stephanie Derrick (neither published in The Collected Letters) are presented from the Dover Wilson archives as evidence of the cordial scholarly relationship that eventually developed between the two. The essay shows Lewis as a clever, thorough, combative, yet friendly scholar (though perhaps not always all at the same time) engaging in and, in fact, initiating important discussions with perhaps the most significant Shakespearean textual scholar of his time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Inklings Studies
Journal of Inklings Studies Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
Holly Ordway, Tolkien’s Faith: A Spiritual Biography James E. Siburt, Myth, Magic, and Power in Tolkien’s Middle-earth: Developing a Model for Understanding Power and Leadership Adam Edward Carnehl, The Artist as Divine Symbol: Chesterton’s Theological Aesthetic Janka Kascakova and David Levente Palatinus (eds), J.R.R. Tolkien in Central Europe: Contexts, Directions, and the Legacy ‘He seems to be at the back of all the stories’: The Subtlety of Narnian Providence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1