Johnny José Mafra

Porque, segundo Eliot, Camões não é um clássico

Introduction

Porque, segundo eliot, camões não é um clássico. Explore a perspectiva de T.S. Eliot sobre Camões e o conceito de "clássico". Analise a evolução histórica e literária da definição de classicismo desde Roma.

Abstract

Estudamos hoje uma questão que não é nova, pois nos foi legada pela antigüidade latina: o significado de classicus. Nos primitivos tempos de Roma, a palavra designava a primeira das cinco partes em que Sérvio Túlio dividira a população da cidade. Ao significado sociológico e político do vocábulo juntou-se a idéia de ex celência e prestígio. Mais tarde, no século II d. C, classicus aparece em Noctes Atticae de Aulo Gélio, na expressão classicus scriptor, utilizada para exprimir o conceito de escritor excelente e modelar (Cf. Vítor Manuel de Aguiar e Silva. Teoria da Literatura. Coimbra, Livraria Almedina, 1967. p. 351).

Review

This paper presents an intriguing and potentially valuable contribution to literary criticism, judging by its title, "Porque, segundo Eliot, Camões não é um clássico." The title immediately signals a sophisticated engagement with two towering figures of Western literature – T.S. Eliot, renowned for his critical theory, and Luís Vaz de Camões, Portugal's national poet – through the lens of a fundamental literary concept: the "classic." This premise suggests a rigorous analytical approach, aiming to apply Eliot's specific criteria for classicism to Camões's work, which could shed new light on both Eliot's theory and Camões's enduring legacy, potentially challenging conventional understandings. Such an exploration promises to stimulate academic debate and deepen our appreciation of what constitutes a "classic" across different literary traditions. However, a significant disconnect emerges when examining the provided abstract. Instead of outlining the argument concerning Eliot's view of Camões, the abstract is entirely dedicated to tracing the historical and etymological evolution of the term "classicus" from ancient Rome. It details its origins in Servius Tullius's social divisions, its shift to denote excellence and prestige, and its appearance in Aulus Gellius's *Noctes Atticae* in the context of a "classic writer." While this historical background is interesting in itself, it completely omits any mention of T.S. Eliot, Camões, or the specific interpretive challenge posed by the title. The abstract, as it stands, does not prepare the reader for the paper's stated core argument, leaving its actual scope and contribution unclear. To be an effective and coherent submission, the abstract must be thoroughly revised to align with the compelling promise of the title. The author should concisely articulate the paper's central thesis: how T.S. Eliot's definition of a classic is understood and applied, and the specific reasons why, under this framework, Camões might not be considered one. It should outline the methodology used, perhaps by identifying which of Eliot's essays or criteria are being engaged. Clearly stating the paper's analytical framework and its main conclusions regarding Eliot and Camões in the abstract is crucial for guiding the reader and ensuring that the initial promise of the title is adequately reflected in the content and argument presented.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.