Romantic Women and their Books

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE STUDIES IN ROMANTICISM Pub Date : 2022-02-03 DOI:10.1353/srm.2021.0034
Michelle Levy, Andrew M. Stauffer
{"title":"Romantic Women and their Books","authors":"Michelle Levy, Andrew M. Stauffer","doi":"10.1353/srm.2021.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of studies in romanticism, “Romantic Women and their Books,” takes its origin from a shared conviction that the intersecting circles of gender studies, book history, and Romanticism should be pushed closer together, creating more overlapping spaces in that Venn diagram. Nearly thirty years ago, Anne Mellor asked, “What difference does gender make to our understanding of literary Romanticism?” The field rose to answer in an outpouring of recovery work and theoretical reframing that profoundly changed the ways we teach and publish on the Romantic era. Around the same time, Jerome McGann was challenging Romanticists with versions of the question, “What difference do the circumstances of publication make to the interpretation of a literary work?” In the decades that followed, book history and critical bibliography have assumed new prominence in Romantic studies as methods for investigating literary media cultures. In gathering essays for this issue, we asked authors to consider a hybrid of the Mellor-McGann provocations: what difference does a doubled lens of gender and book history make to our understanding of Romantic writing? Or, as we asked in the call for papers, “What do we gain, and what might we lose, by resituating Romantic women’s writing and their literary labor within new frameworks of material and bibliographic histories?” In 1993, Mellor began to document the different preoccupations of women writers, many of whom did not share the investments of male poets in transcendence and the imagination, but rather advocated for rationality, equality, and an “ethic of care.” Mellor asserted that because scholarly conceptions of the field were based on a small selection of male poets, our “descriptions of that historical phenomenon we call Romanticism are unwittingly gender-biased.” In his 1998 study, The Work of Writing, Clifford Siskin developed a theory","PeriodicalId":44848,"journal":{"name":"STUDIES IN ROMANTICISM","volume":"60 1","pages":"371 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"STUDIES IN ROMANTICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/srm.2021.0034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This special issue of studies in romanticism, “Romantic Women and their Books,” takes its origin from a shared conviction that the intersecting circles of gender studies, book history, and Romanticism should be pushed closer together, creating more overlapping spaces in that Venn diagram. Nearly thirty years ago, Anne Mellor asked, “What difference does gender make to our understanding of literary Romanticism?” The field rose to answer in an outpouring of recovery work and theoretical reframing that profoundly changed the ways we teach and publish on the Romantic era. Around the same time, Jerome McGann was challenging Romanticists with versions of the question, “What difference do the circumstances of publication make to the interpretation of a literary work?” In the decades that followed, book history and critical bibliography have assumed new prominence in Romantic studies as methods for investigating literary media cultures. In gathering essays for this issue, we asked authors to consider a hybrid of the Mellor-McGann provocations: what difference does a doubled lens of gender and book history make to our understanding of Romantic writing? Or, as we asked in the call for papers, “What do we gain, and what might we lose, by resituating Romantic women’s writing and their literary labor within new frameworks of material and bibliographic histories?” In 1993, Mellor began to document the different preoccupations of women writers, many of whom did not share the investments of male poets in transcendence and the imagination, but rather advocated for rationality, equality, and an “ethic of care.” Mellor asserted that because scholarly conceptions of the field were based on a small selection of male poets, our “descriptions of that historical phenomenon we call Romanticism are unwittingly gender-biased.” In his 1998 study, The Work of Writing, Clifford Siskin developed a theory
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
浪漫主义女性与她们的书
这期浪漫主义研究特刊《浪漫主义女性及其书籍》的起源于一个共同的信念,即性别研究、书籍史和浪漫主义的交叉圈子应该更紧密地结合在一起,在维恩图中创造更多重叠的空间。近三十年前,安妮·梅勒(Anne Mellor)问道:“性别对我们对文学浪漫主义的理解有什么不同?”这一领域在大量的恢复工作和理论重构中脱颖而出,深刻改变了我们在浪漫主义时代的教学和出版方式。大约在同一时间,杰罗姆·麦甘(Jerome McGann)用“出版环境对文学作品的解释有什么不同?”这个问题的版本向浪漫主义者提出了挑战。在随后的几十年里,书籍史和批判性参考书目作为调查文学媒体文化的方法,在浪漫主义研究中占据了新的地位。在收集本期文章时,我们请作者考虑梅勒·麦甘挑衅的混合:性别和书籍历史的双重视角对我们理解浪漫主义写作有什么不同?或者,正如我们在论文征集中所问的那样,“通过在新的材料和文献历史框架内重新审视浪漫主义女性的写作和文学劳动,我们能得到什么,我们会失去什么?”1993年,梅勒开始记录女性作家的不同关注点,其中许多人没有分享男性诗人在超越和想象力方面的投资,而是提倡理性、平等和“关怀伦理”。梅勒断言,由于该领域的学术概念是基于少数男性诗人的选择,我们“对我们称之为浪漫主义的历史现象的描述在不知不觉中带有性别偏见。”在他1998年的研究《写作之作》中,克利福德·西斯金提出了一个理论
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Studies in Romanticism was founded in 1961 by David Bonnell Green at a time when it was still possible to wonder whether "romanticism" was a term worth theorizing (as Morse Peckham deliberated in the first essay of the first number). It seemed that it was, and, ever since, SiR (as it is known to abbreviation) has flourished under a fine succession of editors: Edwin Silverman, W. H. Stevenson, Charles Stone III, Michael Cooke, Morton Palet, and (continuously since 1978) David Wagenknecht. There are other fine journals in which scholars of romanticism feel it necessary to appear - and over the years there are a few important scholars of the period who have not been represented there by important work.
期刊最新文献
Serial Forms: The Unfinished Project of Modernity, 1815–1848 by Clare Pettitt (review) Notes on Contributors Text Books for Innocence: Moravian-Swedenborgian Infant Education and William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience England Re-Oriented: How Central and South Asian Travelers Imagined the West, 1750–1857 by Humberto Garcia (review) Romantic Sociability, Deaf Comedy, and John Poole's Deaf as a Post (1823)
×
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