Literature Compass最新文献

This essay examines the treatment of air and atmosphere in literary scholarship of the late 17th- to mid-19th-century periods, from the first, early Enlightenment discovery of the air's chemical structure and the coining of the word ‘atmosphere’, to the dawning of Victorian industrial pollution. As climate has become the predominant focus of environmental campaigning, and as air pollution and air infection have become near-universal concerns, the air itself has gained a corresponding increase in academic attention. Part I of my essay begins by sketching out the longer history of this interest, showing that air and atmosphere are complex words that have longstanding philosophical and literary histories alongside their everyday ‘real’ meanings. I explore the place of air studies in the History of Science, and look at how this discipline and English studies have enjoyed a close proximity with regards to the major chemical discoveries of the Enlightenment period. Part II defines the field of ‘atmosphere studies’ as it has emerged from 20th-century philosophy, and its importance to contemporary geography, anthropology and architecture. The complexity of the idea of ‘atmosphere’ is, however, rooted in early 19th-century aesthetics, and hence, I argue, literary scholarship of this period makes a crucial contribution to this broader atmospheric enquiry. Part III explores how literary critics and historians have begun to respond to contemporary discourse on air as primarily an issue of climate change and pollution, and suggests that there is a new eco-realism or literalness in discussion of atmosphere, borne out by increasing reflection on the carbon impact of academic work itself. I sketch out some suggestions for future research and emphasize again the importance of the 18th- and 19th-century legacies for understanding and even acting upon the contemporary air and climate crisis.

This article examines how two nineteenth-century Bengali adaptations of Cymbeline transfer Shakespeare's play to a Hindu field of signifiers and reinterpret the elements of tragicomedy according to the worldview of traditional Indian drama. Kusumkumari Natak (1868) by Chandrakali Ghosh, which was enacted before a ticket-buying audience at the nascent phase of the Bengali public theatre in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), condenses or rejects much of the action and dialogue of Cymbeline for the sake of economy. For example, it excludes Cloten and the confusion over his beheading and discards Posthumus's dream together with the prophetic riddle. On the other hand, Sushila Birsingha (1868) by Satyendranath Tagore, which was probably never staged, follows the convoluted plot and characterisation of Cymbeline quite closely. Cymbeline would appeal to the Bengali audience because it recalls traditional Hindu tales of reunion and reconciliation, including those of Sakuntala-Dushyanta (referenced by Kusumkumari Natak) and Damayanti-Nala (referenced by Sushila Birsingha). Moreover, Innogen's ordeals would be compatible with the trope of the abandoned faithful wife (as exemplified by Sita, Sakuntala, Damayanti) in Sanskrit epic and drama. This would also enable the valorisation of wifely fidelity and chastity, a favourite topic of Hindu patriarchal imagination in the nineteenth century. More importantly, the theme of loss and recuperation inherent in Cymbeline accords with the episteme and aesthetics of classical Sanskrit drama, which avoided exploring grave moral challenges and rejected the finality of sufferings (thanks to the doctrines of Vedanta or monistic theism, karma and reincarnation). This article also suggests that Cymbeline fell out of favour with subsequent Bengali translators and playgoers as the taste for tragedy grew among them.

As premodern studies continues to develop tools for anti-racist scholarship and pedagogy, this essay establishes the stakes of adaptation/appropriation studies especially committing to these efforts. Turning to the novel The Serpent of Venice, I demonstrate how appropriations that engage with race too often employ what I frame as racial euphemism: palliative engagements with race that sidestep questions of power and inequity. This is especially true for those attempting to maintain distance between Shakespeare and questions of race, and especially racism, often under the guise of historical accuracy. This racially euphemistic approach, therefore, disseminates to especially wide audiences white supremacist approaches to race. Premodern Critical Race Studies provides a vital activist framework, and with it, important conceptual and methodological tools, that help adaptation/appropriation scholars identify racial euphemism in premodern retellings, while at the same time offering appropriators scholarship that can help them craft anti-racist appropriations that resist the idea of a race-neutral past.

This essay examines the racializing logics and consequences of drawing analogies between the works of William Shakespeare and the devastatingly violent realities of the drug trade in the Americas. The particular prominence of Macbeth in the wide range of Shakespearean invocations and appropriations in contemporary US narratives about narcotrafficking cannot be attributed simply to the fact that it is a tale of bloody ambition. Rather, the repeated mapping of a play that comes to its conclusion with an English military invasion of its “barbarous” Scottish neighbors onto the US–Mexico Borderlands speaks to much deeper histories of colonial conquest and to neocolonial interventionist policies and actions of the present. The essay concludes by turning to two recent instances in which theater artists have translated and significantly revised Macbeth in order to reframe dominant narratives about narcotrafficking, racial supremacy, and the border. These productions demonstrate the disruptive and transformative potential of Shakespearean appropriations that resist neocolonial power structures and ideologies.

Tracing connections between research methodologies and classroom practices in the study of Shakespeare and race, this essay argues for the importance of offering students’ opportunities to build and demonstrate expertise. The essay discusses the use of a glossary exercise in classes on race and early modern literature, and the learning objectives for such courses. Finally, the essay offers a critique of such courses as commonly structured and suggestions for new directions in teaching race in literature from this period.

This essay critiques the French cultural aversion to racial thinking which has resulted in the absence of race as a theme and analytic in French historiographic practices, especially in relation to the ancien régime. This essay argues that focusing on 17th century theater and performance culture, especially on baroque ballets and their oblique representations of Blackness and slavery through blackface, reveals a long national history of racism against Black people. This essay is a call to rewrite as an age of race-making a period often construed as a cultural and literary golden age that still plays a central role in definitions of French heritage and identity today.

Medieval Studies is embodied through whiteness, limited by whiteness, and created by the white imagination. In this field, as it is, objectivity is white subjectivity. In this paper, I argue that unless we practice embodied criticism, there is no way to think about the time and space we define as “Medieval Studies” without inhabiting whiteness. Embodied criticism sanctions, if not requires, that we find entry points to history that are not historical. By valuing all of ourselves, by making our critical landscape all of us, we make it impossible to abandon, overlook, or forget the present as we engage with the past. The Middle Ages that I think about and write about is one that is processed through me. In this Middle Ages, nothing that affects how I am in the world is deemed anachronistic because the theoretical, political, social, and legal forces that govern how I operate in the world are the ones that affect how and what I know about history, how and what I think about space. In it, there is value for the questions grief yields. Any work I produce as I process history is radically transparent as a production by me of me, a Muslim, Iranian-American body in this place and time.

For several decades, medieval scholars have argued over race's definition and its use for geographies, contexts, and group dynamics in premodern Europe. In medieval history, this discussion has been based on a non-scholarly definition of race that never cited any work in critical race studies. Medieval history's uncritical definition of race, which is defined with a eugenicist, pre-World War II classification and has ignored the last 60 years of scholarship, has stopped medieval studies from having a sustained, well-informed discussion. Medieval history remains willingly stuck in pre-civil rights methodologies of white supremacist history, but other disciplines offer useful correctives. For instance, scholars in literary and religious studies use critical race concepts drawn from social sciences to better understand medieval ideas of race.

This essay explores the insidious but persistent desire to affix whiteness to modes of bondage and to argue for an original ‘white slavery’ located in early modern forms of traffic, indenture and forced transport. This essay aims to recover the genealogy of this belief, beginning with one of its conceptual origins: the practice of ‘spiriting’ in the seventeenth century. Reading accounts of ‘spiriting’, I firstly trace the narrative genealogies of English bondage to argue that consent emerges as a racialised rubric. Secondly, I think in particular about the representation of (very different kinds of) spirits in contemporary literary and cultural texts, including The Tempest, to suggest that even as they engage and anticipate the practice of ‘spiriting’, they also strategically elide their own histories of the traffic and transport of non-white bodies. As one early modern understanding of ‘spiriting’ specifically comes to associate the practice with the capture and bondage of children, the nexus of slavery, race and children emerges as particularly fraught. If ‘white slavery’ denotes the limit case for the legibility of slavery, the photographs of ‘white’ enslaved children later circulated by white abolitionists in the nineteenth century to invoke sympathy for their cause played on the fundamental irreconcilability of ‘whiteness’ and bondage even as they re-asserted the imbrication of slavery and sanguinity. This study attends to the trajectory of discourses of slavery written on and in the body to explore the histories of both a contemporary and an insistently current investment in frameworks of ‘white slavery’, as it attempts to discover the early modern frameworks for the legibility of race and slavery as they were co-articulated ‘before’ the supposed ‘emergence’ of either.

This essay presents an autoethnographic account of my coming to acknowledge my own whiteness while my Puerto Rican mother stressed that I was Boricua above all and my non-LatinX White grandfather called me “the best kind of mix, a Texa-Rican.” In my presentation at the inaugural RaceB4Race symposium, which was titled “How to Begin Embodying Antiracist Whiteness in Premodern Studies,” I began with a brief history of the United States Census forms since 1970 to demonstrate the socially constructed nature of the panethnic categories “Latino” and “Hispanic” that led to my mother's emphasis on my Latinidad rather than my whiteness, which, in turn, led to my own ethnoracial confusion. I draw upon research in medieval studies, LatinX studies, critical race studies, raciolinguistics, and critiques of institutional diversity work. One of this essay's goals is to stress that the violent identity erasure that Black LatinX, as well as other Black, Indigenous, People of Color, experience in addition to the racism they face every day is different from the ethnolinguistic exclusion and erasure that I experience. I share my narrative of learning to own my white identity to emphasize our need for truly intersectional practices within scholarship and institutional work with the hope that more White colleagues will reflect on the ways that their whiteness not only hinders their ability to see whiteness as a racial identity, but also contributes to the ongoing violence we perpetuate on our colleagues of color, even those of us who identify as white LatinX. These hindrances prevent us from fully embodying and enacting antiracist practices within medieval studies and academia more broadly.