The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
1968
DOI: 10.2307/1769804
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ancient Pastoral and the Pathetic Fallacy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

1975
1975
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…I argue that this ambiguity is the basis for the inconsistency surrounding the technique in the fields of literature, linguistics and education. Whilst some literary researchers such as Logan (1940), Young (1949), Sacks (1985), Auger (2010), Langer (2010), Ford (2011), Nishimura (2003), Thomas (1961), Cushman et al (2012) define PF as a specific type of personification which attributes natural elements with emotions; others define the technique as a projection of emotions onto the natural world (Copley, 1937; Dick, 1968: 27–30; Ford, 1948; Gérard, 1964; Griffiths, 2004: 15; Johnson, 2012: 172; Lodge, 1992: 85, Lodge 2002:127–128; Miall, 2011: 340–342). Dick (1968: 27–30) observes that PF ‘is often interchangeable with personification’, which is mirrored in existing literature.…”
Section: Literature Review Of Pfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I argue that this ambiguity is the basis for the inconsistency surrounding the technique in the fields of literature, linguistics and education. Whilst some literary researchers such as Logan (1940), Young (1949), Sacks (1985), Auger (2010), Langer (2010), Ford (2011), Nishimura (2003), Thomas (1961), Cushman et al (2012) define PF as a specific type of personification which attributes natural elements with emotions; others define the technique as a projection of emotions onto the natural world (Copley, 1937; Dick, 1968: 27–30; Ford, 1948; Gérard, 1964; Griffiths, 2004: 15; Johnson, 2012: 172; Lodge, 1992: 85, Lodge 2002:127–128; Miall, 2011: 340–342). Dick (1968: 27–30) observes that PF ‘is often interchangeable with personification’, which is mirrored in existing literature.…”
Section: Literature Review Of Pfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Oltre Philologus 153 (2009) 1 17 Sul motivo cf. Dick (1968); Gershenson (1974); Buller (1981); Schmidt (1987) 116-122; Reed (1997) 18 Sullo sviluppo del topos in àmbito epigrammatico cf. Tarán (1979) 132-149, mentre per una sua precoce occorrenza nella poesia tragica si rinvia a Di Marco (1997).…”
unclassified
“…1.74, 6.85-6, 8.14-5, 10.75-6).24 The response of nature to the singer is a theme absent from Theocritus; the personification of the pine tree in Idyll 1 besides being as isolated example 25 is not quite the same thing. Berg 26 has recently suggested that Virgil is here distinguishing his own art from the 'mimetic' art of his model (Thyrsis in Idyll I is rivalling nature, whereas Tityrus gives it the lead, teaching the woods resonare) and consciously drawing our attention to this difference. His argument rather tends to assume that Idyll 1 was the first poem in the ancient collection of Theocritus, but this is not certain.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%