No description available.

Thesis (BPhil)--Open University.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 177-184). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

My study looks at the influence that Matthew Arnold, 19th century English poet and literary critic, had on John Dewey, American pragmatist and educational philosopher. While the influence of Arnold on Dewey was more pervasive than I had expected, my real purpose in writing this dissertation was to discover a middle ground between the educational philosophies the two men espoused and to construe a fuller approach to a pluralistic educational philosophy. I have looked at four aspects of mind that draw Arnold and Dewey into close correspondence. The first aspect I have called the tentacled mind from Dewey's favored metaphor of the mind as having tentacles that reach out and encounter directly the physical world. This aspect of mind allows me to look at the common use that both Arnold and Dewey made of the term "experience." The second aspect of mind I call the critical mind. I have explored this aspect of mind by looking at a brief history of English literary criticism from Dryden to Stanley Fish. The third aspect of mind is the intentional mind which deals with the rhetorical-hermeneutic relationship of mind to the intentionality of other voices and to its own intentionality. This aspect crosses into reader response theory, but I have found within it results that differ significantly from traditional reader-response theory. The final aspect of mind I have called reflective-response. In both Arnold and Dewey the reflective aspects of the mind differ widely from more contemplative conceptions of the mind in a reflective state; most notably for both Arnold and Dewey the reflective mind is never passive. I believe that when these four aspects of mind are brought together they amount to a truly pluralistic educational philosophy. In the course of my argument I have, as well, identified a need to rehabilitate both the concept of intentionality and that of authority. / text

No description available.

This study fills a gap in previous research concerning the portrayal of Peter in Matthew, especially the research of narrative-critical studies. Although narrative-critical studies generally recognize that Matthew has portrayed Peter and the disciples as recipients of revelation at points, they almost entirely neglect the apocalypses or apocalyptic literature more broadly as a potentially helpful background for this motif, nor does the motif itself figure significantly into their conclusions. Therefore, Part 1 of this study examines fourteen different Jewish and Christian apocalypses in order to determine generic aspects of how the apocalypses portray their seers, and to identify specific textual features that support these generic aspects of a seer’s portrayal. These specific textual features then provide the guiding coordinates for Part 2, which assesses the influence of the generic portrayal of apocalyptic seers on the portrayal of Peter and the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel and main source, Mark’s Gospel. Like the apocalypses, both Evangelists deploy the features of exclusionary statements, narrative isolation, dissemination details, and emphasis of cognitive humanity and emotional-physical humanity to portray Peter and the disciples as the exclusive recipients of revealed mysteries, and as humans who encounter the mysteries of the divine realm. This leads to the conclusion that both Evangelists envisaged Peter and the disciples as apocalyptic seers in some sense. However, Matthew’s redaction of Markan source material, incorporation of Q source material, and his own special material yield a more fully developed, or more explicit, portrayal of Peter and the disciples as apocalyptic seers than his Markan predecessor. The study concludes by focusing directly on Peter’s significance for Matthew and his earliest audience. The research suggests that Peter’s significance was, in part, as principal apocalyptic seer, which requires revision to the predominant scholarly conclusions about Peter in Matthew.

In the centuries that have passed since the premiere of Johann Sebastian Bach’s St. Matthew Passion in Leipzig’s St. Thomas’s Church at the Good Friday service in 1727, the work has had a remarkable performance history. Despite the fact that it received a number of repeat performances during Bach’s own lifetime (in revised versions), the St. Matthew Passion was largely forgotten after the composer’s passing until Felix Mendelssohn “resurrected” it in Berlin in 1829 with the localSing-Akademie and the Philharmonische Gesellschaft. The latter performance created such a level of excitement and interest in musical circles that two repeat performances followed soon after, despite Mendelssohn’s absence from Berlin. In 1970, Nikolaus Harnoncourt’s groundbreaking Telefunken LP of the St. Matthew Passion with the period instrument band Concentus Musicus Wien was released, a recording that, above all, stood in stark contrast to the consistent growth in the size of choirs performing this work that had occurred over centuries since Bach’s first performance in 1727. As with Mendelssohn’s performance, Harnoncourt’s interpretation generated great interest in scholarly circles and among the listening public. This critical commentary examines the size and constitution of the vocal and instrumental forces of all three performances of the St. Matthew Passion, as well as the extent to which those of 1829 and 1970 adhered to what is known of Bach’s own practices. In addition to investigating the choices made by the respective musical directors in this respect, the reception of Mendelssohn’s and Harnoncourt’s performances will also be considered.

G.W.L. Marshall-Hall began work as first Ormond Professor of Music at Melbourne University in 1891. In July and August 1898 he published a book of poems and gave a public address, which, together, led to demands for his dismissal. The outcry against him came largely from a section of the community which Matthew Arnold, some thirty years earlier in England, had identified as Hebraic. The radical contrast between, on the one hand, the underlying assumptions of this group, particularly its epistemology and axiology and, on the other, the Hellenic, Existentialist axioms that informed Marshall-Hall’s thinking, created a situation which was structurally conducive to the hostile outbreak of collective action that occurred. This structural conductiveness was reinforced by a number of elements of strain - a belief in the debased character of the times; a pervasive Manicheanism; various misunderstandings in regard to Marshall-Hall’s views, deriving from the unsystematic and frequently allegorical manner of their exposition; and contemporary perceptions of his role as a university teacher, and of the tone in which his outbursts were couched (itself the outcome of a blend of conscious beliefs and unconscious motivation). (For complete abstract open document)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Notre Dame, 2004. / Thesis directed by Chris Vanden Bossche for the Department of English. "July 2004." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 266-283).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1968. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.