Jonathan Goldberg, who died shortly after the publication of this book, was chiefly known for creating critical dialogues between early modernity and post-modernism. The simplest premise for a book like Being of Two Minds is reception study; Goldberg’s book is not quite that, although it might be a kind of reception study squared or folded back on itself—an account, by an early modernist, of how three modernist critics (Eliot, Woolf, and Empson) wrote about using early modern literature to think with. Being of Two Minds is more of a how than a why kind of book, and more in the end about modernist than early modern writing, although Goldberg brings to bear a welcome familiarity with the poets who are his main subjects’ subjects (existing studies with overlapping interests, he notes, have been by modernism specialists, and primarily consisted in allusion-hunting). Perhaps its closest kin, mentioned several times in a book otherwise not over-entangled with recent criticism, is Helen Thaventhiran’s 2015 Radical Empiricists: Five Modernist Close Readers.
乔纳森·戈德堡(Jonathan Goldberg)在本书出版后不久去世，他主要以在早期现代性和后现代主义之间建立批判性对话而闻名。写《三心二意》这样的书，最简单的前提是接受研究;戈德堡的书不完全是这样，尽管它可能是一种接受研究的方正或折叠——一个早期现代主义者的叙述，三位现代主义评论家(艾略特、伍尔夫和Empson)如何用早期现代文学来思考。《三心二意》更多的是关于“如何”而不是“为什么”的书，最后更多的是关于现代主义而不是早期现代写作，尽管戈德堡对诗人的熟悉程度令人欢迎，这些诗人是他的主要研究对象的研究对象(他指出，现有的研究有重叠的兴趣，是由现代主义专家进行的，主要是在寻找典故)。或许它最接近的同类是海伦·萨文蒂兰(Helen Thaventhiran)在2015年出版的《激进经验主义者:五位现代主义近距离读者》(Radical empiralists: Five Modernist Close Readers)，这本书在一本没有过多卷入近期批评的书中被多次提及。
{"title":"<scp>Jonathan Goldberg</scp>. <i>Being of Two Minds: Modernist Literary Criticism and Early Modern Texts</i>","authors":"Esther Osorio Whewell","doi":"10.1093/res/hgad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad006","url":null,"abstract":"Jonathan Goldberg, who died shortly after the publication of this book, was chiefly known for creating critical dialogues between early modernity and post-modernism. The simplest premise for a book like Being of Two Minds is reception study; Goldberg’s book is not quite that, although it might be a kind of reception study squared or folded back on itself—an account, by an early modernist, of how three modernist critics (Eliot, Woolf, and Empson) wrote about using early modern literature to think with. Being of Two Minds is more of a how than a why kind of book, and more in the end about modernist than early modern writing, although Goldberg brings to bear a welcome familiarity with the poets who are his main subjects’ subjects (existing studies with overlapping interests, he notes, have been by modernism specialists, and primarily consisted in allusion-hunting). Perhaps its closest kin, mentioned several times in a book otherwise not over-entangled with recent criticism, is Helen Thaventhiran’s 2015 Radical Empiricists: Five Modernist Close Readers.","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135489624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay revisits the publication of John Marston’s writings following his withdrawal from theatrical activity. It directs attention away from Marston’s presumed interventions and examines the choices and activities of five stationers: Thomas Thorpe, Thomas Archer, Richard Hawkins, Hugh Perry, and William Sheares. Their release of Marston’s writing offers a sharp insight into their various strategies and practices. Thorpe’s handling of What You Will and Histrio-mastix is best understood in relation to his choice to publish the plays of Marston, Jonson, and Chapman—and those of no other dramatist. Archer’s release of The Insatiate Countesse makes most sense in relation to the Overbury scandal. Hawkins—unlike his peers—progressively accentuated authorial agency in the successive editions of The Metamorphosis of Pigmalions Image within his series of Alcilia-led compilations. Perry and Sheares seem to have been running a joint enterprise at the time of The Workes of Mr John Marston of 1633. By turning towards the choices made by these stationers and placing less emphasis on the hypothesis of Marston’s reluctance to be associated with his writings, a new history of reception, dissemination, and publishing enterprise emerges.
{"title":"John Marston’s Stationers, 1607–1633","authors":"Charles Cathcart","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac098","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay revisits the publication of John Marston’s writings following his withdrawal from theatrical activity. It directs attention away from Marston’s presumed interventions and examines the choices and activities of five stationers: Thomas Thorpe, Thomas Archer, Richard Hawkins, Hugh Perry, and William Sheares. Their release of Marston’s writing offers a sharp insight into their various strategies and practices. Thorpe’s handling of What You Will and Histrio-mastix is best understood in relation to his choice to publish the plays of Marston, Jonson, and Chapman—and those of no other dramatist. Archer’s release of The Insatiate Countesse makes most sense in relation to the Overbury scandal. Hawkins—unlike his peers—progressively accentuated authorial agency in the successive editions of The Metamorphosis of Pigmalions Image within his series of Alcilia-led compilations. Perry and Sheares seem to have been running a joint enterprise at the time of The Workes of Mr John Marston of 1633. By turning towards the choices made by these stationers and placing less emphasis on the hypothesis of Marston’s reluctance to be associated with his writings, a new history of reception, dissemination, and publishing enterprise emerges.","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136117232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Porscha Fermanis. Romantic Pasts: History, Fiction and Feeling in Britain, 1790-1850","authors":"M. Goode","doi":"10.1093/res/hgad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116611095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal Article Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas Fréry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna, and Gianluca Mori (eds). Lettres sur les Anglais Get access Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas Fréry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna, and Gianluca Mori (eds). Lettres sur les Anglais. By voltaire. Vol. 6A (I & II), Pp. xxii+704; Vol. 6B, Pp. xxxvi+611; Vol. 6C, Pp. xvi+328 (Les Œuvres complètes de Voltaire). Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2020–22. Hardback, £350. Thomas Keymer Thomas Keymer University of Toronto, Canada Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of English Studies, Volume 74, Issue 313, February 2023, Pages 179–181, https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad002 Published: 13 January 2023 Article history Received: 08 December 2022 Editorial decision: 02 January 2023 Accepted: 03 January 2023 Corrected and typeset: 13 January 2023 Published: 13 January 2023
期刊文章Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas fracimry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna和Gianluca Mori(编)。查阅Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas fracry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna和Gianluca Mori(编)。英国人的信。伏尔泰。卷6A (I和II)， Pp. xxii+704;第6B卷，第xxxvi+611页;卷6C, Pp. xvi+328 (Les Œuvres complires de Voltaire)。牛津:伏尔泰基金会，2020-22。精装,£350。Thomas Keymer Thomas Keymer加拿大多伦多大学搜索作者的其他作品:牛津学术谷歌学者英语研究评论，第74卷，第313期，2023年2月，179-181页，https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad002出版:2023年1月13日文章历史接收:2022年12月8日编辑决定:2023年1月2日接受:2023年1月3日校正和排版:2023年1月13日出版:2023年1月13日
{"title":"<scp>Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas Fréry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna</scp>, and <scp>Gianluca Mori</scp> (eds). <i>Lettres sur les Anglais</i>","authors":"Thomas Keymer","doi":"10.1093/res/hgad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad002","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas Fréry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna, and Gianluca Mori (eds). Lettres sur les Anglais Get access Nicholas Cronk, Nick Treuherz, Nicolas Fréry, Ruggero Sciuto, Antony McKenna, and Gianluca Mori (eds). Lettres sur les Anglais. By voltaire. Vol. 6A (I & II), Pp. xxii+704; Vol. 6B, Pp. xxxvi+611; Vol. 6C, Pp. xvi+328 (Les Œuvres complètes de Voltaire). Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2020–22. Hardback, £350. Thomas Keymer Thomas Keymer University of Toronto, Canada Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of English Studies, Volume 74, Issue 313, February 2023, Pages 179–181, https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgad002 Published: 13 January 2023 Article history Received: 08 December 2022 Editorial decision: 02 January 2023 Accepted: 03 January 2023 Corrected and typeset: 13 January 2023 Published: 13 January 2023","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135898226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract With a particular focus on an intensive close reading of the scenes between the lovers and their portrayal of desire and intimacy, this essay discusses how Shakespeare transforms lyric poetry, especially its formal features, not simply into dramatic poetry but into theatre, demonstrating how Shakespeare creates the lovers’ world and the passionate intimacy of their relationship through the embodiment of lyric forms, especially the sonnet, the epithalamium, and the aubade. Explicitly thinking about bodies (and bodies on stage) rather than ‘the body’, it draws on a number of Shakespeare’s sources, especially Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella and Marlowe’s Hero and Leander, as well as Arthur Brooke’s Romeus and Juliet, exploring in precise detail how Shakespeare works with them, the particularity of his transformations, and their effects.1
{"title":"Body Language: Making Love in Lyric in <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>","authors":"Hester Lees-Jeffries","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac097","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With a particular focus on an intensive close reading of the scenes between the lovers and their portrayal of desire and intimacy, this essay discusses how Shakespeare transforms lyric poetry, especially its formal features, not simply into dramatic poetry but into theatre, demonstrating how Shakespeare creates the lovers’ world and the passionate intimacy of their relationship through the embodiment of lyric forms, especially the sonnet, the epithalamium, and the aubade. Explicitly thinking about bodies (and bodies on stage) rather than ‘the body’, it draws on a number of Shakespeare’s sources, especially Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella and Marlowe’s Hero and Leander, as well as Arthur Brooke’s Romeus and Juliet, exploring in precise detail how Shakespeare works with them, the particularity of his transformations, and their effects.1","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136039618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniel Defoe’s pirate novel Captain Singleton (1720) was republished in 1757, during the political and military crises of the early stages of the Seven Years’ War. The fact that Singleton at this time was extensively rewritten has gone entirely unnoticed by scholars. The present article explains how this version of Defoe’s maritime picaresque fiction responded to national anxieties about naval performance, aristocratic leadership, and martial masculinity following the loss of Minorca, seeking to galvanize its readers during the privateering rush of this period and the more general appetite for a ‘blue-water’, colonial war strategy. In 1757, Bob Singleton is transformed from the stateless sea rover of Defoe’s original into a patriotic privateer who serves the British nation in an unofficial capacity, both as an African explorer in the first half and a maritime adventurer in the second. The 1757 novel shows the ways in which the rising taste for sentimental fiction, moving away from individualistic adventure stories, coalesced with imperialist and nationalist agendas in the mid-eighteenth century. This example of literary appropriation rewards the investigation of the afterlives of eighteenth-century fiction, aiding recognition of how novels endured and were revived, often in revised or remediated states, to reach different readerships and speak to new sociocultural contexts.
{"title":"The Afterlife of Daniel Defoe’s Captain Singleton in the Seven Years’ War","authors":"Nicholas Seager","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac082","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Daniel Defoe’s pirate novel Captain Singleton (1720) was republished in 1757, during the political and military crises of the early stages of the Seven Years’ War. The fact that Singleton at this time was extensively rewritten has gone entirely unnoticed by scholars. The present article explains how this version of Defoe’s maritime picaresque fiction responded to national anxieties about naval performance, aristocratic leadership, and martial masculinity following the loss of Minorca, seeking to galvanize its readers during the privateering rush of this period and the more general appetite for a ‘blue-water’, colonial war strategy. In 1757, Bob Singleton is transformed from the stateless sea rover of Defoe’s original into a patriotic privateer who serves the British nation in an unofficial capacity, both as an African explorer in the first half and a maritime adventurer in the second. The 1757 novel shows the ways in which the rising taste for sentimental fiction, moving away from individualistic adventure stories, coalesced with imperialist and nationalist agendas in the mid-eighteenth century. This example of literary appropriation rewards the investigation of the afterlives of eighteenth-century fiction, aiding recognition of how novels endured and were revived, often in revised or remediated states, to reach different readerships and speak to new sociocultural contexts.","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"220 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115323742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On Looking into Chapman’s Austen: 100 Years On","authors":"K. Sutherland","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac083","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"31 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125630273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents an analysis of two recently found fragments of a Latin psalter with a continuous Old English gloss. The fragments were used as endleaf guards in an early modern book from the collection of Samuel Meienreis, currently held at the C. Norwid Library in Elbląg. We argue that the newly found parchment pieces match four other membra disiecta from the same eleventh-century codex produced in England. Since the formerly identified fragments were removed from the bindings of unknown books, their provenance and the origin of the manuscript from which they were removed have not been established, so far. The new findings partially fill this gap. In this paper we explore palaeographical and linguistic evidence, and the historical context of the manuscript waste found in Elbląg in an attempt to reconstruct the history of the so-called N Psalter to which all the extant pieces once belonged.
{"title":"The Eleventh-Century ‘N’ Psalter from England: New Pieces of the Puzzle","authors":"Monika Opalińska, Paulina Pludra-Żuk, E. Chlebuś","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac081","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents an analysis of two recently found fragments of a Latin psalter with a continuous Old English gloss. The fragments were used as endleaf guards in an early modern book from the collection of Samuel Meienreis, currently held at the C. Norwid Library in Elbląg. We argue that the newly found parchment pieces match four other membra disiecta from the same eleventh-century codex produced in England. Since the formerly identified fragments were removed from the bindings of unknown books, their provenance and the origin of the manuscript from which they were removed have not been established, so far. The new findings partially fill this gap. In this paper we explore palaeographical and linguistic evidence, and the historical context of the manuscript waste found in Elbląg in an attempt to reconstruct the history of the so-called N Psalter to which all the extant pieces once belonged.","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129478723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1647, Humphrey Moseley and Humphrey Robinson published a folio collection of unpublished works which they attributed to Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, two writers famous for their collaborations from 1606 to 1613. But in affording Beaumont a place on the title page, the publishers misattributed the volume. Scholars now accept that Beaumont had very little direct input in the collection whereas Philip Massinger, who began collaborating with Fletcher soon after Beaumont’s retirement, had a very significant, unacknowledged role in the collected plays. This essay offers the first extended discussion of why it was that Massinger was written out of this canon-defining volume. I argue first that Massinger was by many accounts a popular and vendible dramatist, whose omission from the folio had little to do with him having a poor reputation. Instead, I suggest that the reputation of the names Beaumont and Fletcher, established in the preceding decades, proved irresistible to the publishers. Furthermore, I argue that Massinger’s reputation as a distinctive solo playwright also counted against him, making it harder to apprehend him as a prolific collaborator. Next, I demonstrate how the 1647 folio participated in a process of canonization which elided Massinger’s significant collaborative contribution and discuss the distorting effect this has had on our understanding of Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, and playwrighting practice more broadly. I end by pointing towards some ways of rectifying the historical elision of Massinger’s collaboration with Fletcher.
{"title":"The Dearth of the Author: Philip Massinger and the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio","authors":"Eoin Price","doi":"10.1093/res/hgac079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac079","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 1647, Humphrey Moseley and Humphrey Robinson published a folio collection of unpublished works which they attributed to Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, two writers famous for their collaborations from 1606 to 1613. But in affording Beaumont a place on the title page, the publishers misattributed the volume. Scholars now accept that Beaumont had very little direct input in the collection whereas Philip Massinger, who began collaborating with Fletcher soon after Beaumont’s retirement, had a very significant, unacknowledged role in the collected plays. This essay offers the first extended discussion of why it was that Massinger was written out of this canon-defining volume. I argue first that Massinger was by many accounts a popular and vendible dramatist, whose omission from the folio had little to do with him having a poor reputation. Instead, I suggest that the reputation of the names Beaumont and Fletcher, established in the preceding decades, proved irresistible to the publishers. Furthermore, I argue that Massinger’s reputation as a distinctive solo playwright also counted against him, making it harder to apprehend him as a prolific collaborator. Next, I demonstrate how the 1647 folio participated in a process of canonization which elided Massinger’s significant collaborative contribution and discuss the distorting effect this has had on our understanding of Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, and playwrighting practice more broadly. I end by pointing towards some ways of rectifying the historical elision of Massinger’s collaboration with Fletcher.","PeriodicalId":255318,"journal":{"name":"The Review of English Studies","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115788730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：