| المستخلص: |
This paper proposes to examine Robert Bechtold Heilman as a Structuralist critic in the context of his critical work entitled This Great Stage: Image and Structure in King Lear (1948). The present study is an attempt designed to address the following lines of enquiry. What are the major tenets of Structuralism? Who are the major authorities in the field of Shakespearean structuralists? What are Heilman’s main critical concerns? Does he fulfill the criteria of a typical Structuralist critic? Thereupon, this study is divided into three parts. Part I provides an overall view of Structuralism, and its major tenets. It is a concise exploration into this approach and an introduction to its key ideas and methods. Part II sheds light on Caroline Spurgeon and Wolfgang Clemen, in their Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells Us (1935), and The Development of Shakespeare’s Imagery (1951) respectively, as the major Shakespearean “Imagery” critics. Despite the fact that they are not designated as Structuralists, they are considered the exponents of this type of criticism. Their approach to Shakespeare’s artifacts has the symptoms of the underlying logos of Structuralism; their contributions are the seeds of the Structuralist enterprise. Deep down in their reflection upon imagery in Shakespeare’s plays runs a vibrant vein tapped into by the Structuralist dawn. Part III constitutes the heart of the matter; it is an engagement with Heilman’s This Great Stage with the purpose of examining his stance and status as a Structuralist critic. It is a self-critical task designed to define and analyse his position as to whether or not he can be designated as a Structuralist critic.
|
