abstract:Frankenstein presents us today with two different stories and two different lessons. The book, especially in the 1818 first edition, tells the story of Victor Frankenstein’s neglect of his parental duties and the harms that followed. The more lasting myth that succeeded the novel, however, became popular as early as the 1823 production of the first theatrical piece based on the book, Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. This play’s different lesson is that Frankenstein dared too much, presumed to divine powers, and thus instigated the harms that followed. Modern bioscience affords us many unprecedented and disconcerting possibilities through, among other tools, genetics, neuroscience, stem-cell biology, and assisted reproduction. Which lessons should we apply to those possibilities, and from which of the two Frankenstein stories? Henry T. Greely argues that we should mainly fulfill the novel’s views of our duties of care. We should indeed, in Bruno Latour’s words, “Love our Monsters,” though we also need to heed the allure to the public of the myth of presumption.
{"title":"Frankenstein and Modern Bioscience: Which Story Should We Heed?","authors":"H. Greely","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0028","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Frankenstein presents us today with two different stories and two different lessons. The book, especially in the 1818 first edition, tells the story of Victor Frankenstein’s neglect of his parental duties and the harms that followed. The more lasting myth that succeeded the novel, however, became popular as early as the 1823 production of the first theatrical piece based on the book, Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. This play’s different lesson is that Frankenstein dared too much, presumed to divine powers, and thus instigated the harms that followed. Modern bioscience affords us many unprecedented and disconcerting possibilities through, among other tools, genetics, neuroscience, stem-cell biology, and assisted reproduction. Which lessons should we apply to those possibilities, and from which of the two Frankenstein stories? Henry T. Greely argues that we should mainly fulfill the novel’s views of our duties of care. We should indeed, in Bruno Latour’s words, “Love our Monsters,” though we also need to heed the allure to the public of the myth of presumption.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"22 1","pages":"799 - 821"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88430358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:This segment consists primarily of a transcript of the question-and-answer exchange conducted at the Huntington on May 12, 2018, between Nick Dear, the author of the 2011 adaptation of Frankenstein first presented by the National Theatre of Great Britain, and Dr. Anne K. Mellor, Distinguished Research Professor of English at UCLA. The interview was then and is here preceded by general remarks from Mr. Dear, for which he provides the following abstract: “I first remind our readers that I am a playwright, not a scholar, and that I identified a ‘gap in the market.’ Whilst there are many movie versions of the novel in existence, there has not been, to my knowledge, a stage version that was a good play. I wanted to do justice to Mary Shelley’s ‘handbook of radical philosophy’; at the same time, I stress that it’s a fairy tale, not a work of science. I then focus on the decision made with the director, Danny Boyle, to reframe the narrative from the Creature’s point of view. I go on to discuss some of the issues that this raised and the dramaturgical decisions that were subsequently made (for example, losing the framing narrative in the novel of Robert Walton on the ship). Finally, I talk about the difficulties of ending the story onstage—and my solution—given the ambivalent ending of Shelley’s novel.”
本片段主要包括2018年5月12日在亨廷顿进行的一场问答，对话者是2011年由英国国家剧院(National Theatre of Great Britain)首次演出的《弗兰肯斯坦》(Frankenstein)的作者尼克·迪尔(Nick Dear)和加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)杰出研究教授安妮·k·梅勒(Anne K. Mellor)博士。采访之后，迪尔先生发表了一般性评论，在此之前，他提供了以下摘要:“我首先要提醒我们的读者，我是一个剧作家，不是一个学者，我发现了一个‘市场空白’。“虽然这部小说有很多电影版本，但据我所知，还没有一个舞台剧版本是好的。”我想公正地评价玛丽·雪莱的《激进哲学手册》;同时，我要强调这是一个童话故事，而不是科学成果。然后我把重点放在导演丹尼·博伊尔(Danny Boyle)的决定上，从生物的角度重新构建叙事。我将继续讨论由此引发的一些问题以及随后做出的戏剧性决定(例如，在罗伯特·沃尔顿的小说中失去了框架叙事)。最后，我谈到了在舞台上结束这个故事的困难——以及我的解决方案——鉴于雪莱小说的矛盾结局。”
{"title":"Adapting the Unthinkable: An Interview","authors":"Nick Dear, A. Mellor","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0027","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This segment consists primarily of a transcript of the question-and-answer exchange conducted at the Huntington on May 12, 2018, between Nick Dear, the author of the 2011 adaptation of Frankenstein first presented by the National Theatre of Great Britain, and Dr. Anne K. Mellor, Distinguished Research Professor of English at UCLA. The interview was then and is here preceded by general remarks from Mr. Dear, for which he provides the following abstract: “I first remind our readers that I am a playwright, not a scholar, and that I identified a ‘gap in the market.’ Whilst there are many movie versions of the novel in existence, there has not been, to my knowledge, a stage version that was a good play. I wanted to do justice to Mary Shelley’s ‘handbook of radical philosophy’; at the same time, I stress that it’s a fairy tale, not a work of science. I then focus on the decision made with the director, Danny Boyle, to reframe the narrative from the Creature’s point of view. I go on to discuss some of the issues that this raised and the dramaturgical decisions that were subsequently made (for example, losing the framing narrative in the novel of Robert Walton on the ship). Finally, I talk about the difficulties of ending the story onstage—and my solution—given the ambivalent ending of Shelley’s novel.”","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"9 1","pages":"789 - 798"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82789321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus—as the or (appositive or alternative?) may suggest—origins are in such oversupply, such over-determination, as to make a question of origin itself. Its complex multiples extend to a report from the decade in which Frankenstein is cast, the 1790s: J. M. Itard’s De l’éducation d’un homme sauvage (1801), about a feral boy of mysterious origin. Susan Wolfson investigates the several origin-stories for, in, from, and around Mary Shelley’s durably dynamic novel, including the question of “monstrous” assignments and the riddle for Enlightenment thought about whether primitive existence is ideal innocence, or savagery.
文摘:《弗兰肯斯坦》;或者，《现代普罗米修斯》——正如“或”(同义的或替代的?)所暗示的那样——起源是如此的供过于求，如此的过度决定，以致产生了起源本身的问题。它的复杂多重延伸到了《弗兰肯斯坦》的年代，也就是18世纪90年代的一篇报道:j·m·伊塔德(J. M. Itard)的《野蛮人的生活》(De l ' samducation d ' un homme sauvage, 1801)，讲述了一个出身神秘的野性男孩。苏珊·沃尔夫森调查了玛丽·雪莱这部经久不衰的充满活力的小说的几个起源故事，其中包括“可怕的”任务问题，以及启蒙思想关于原始存在是理想的纯真还是野蛮的谜题。
{"title":"Frankenstein’s Origin-Stories","authors":"Susan J. Wolfson","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0032","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus—as the or (appositive or alternative?) may suggest—origins are in such oversupply, such over-determination, as to make a question of origin itself. Its complex multiples extend to a report from the decade in which Frankenstein is cast, the 1790s: J. M. Itard’s De l’éducation d’un homme sauvage (1801), about a feral boy of mysterious origin. Susan Wolfson investigates the several origin-stories for, in, from, and around Mary Shelley’s durably dynamic novel, including the question of “monstrous” assignments and the riddle for Enlightenment thought about whether primitive existence is ideal innocence, or savagery.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"128 1","pages":"663 - 690"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77556625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Although classical political values and their Latin sources continuously informed Elizabethan and Jacobean public culture, assessment of the Roman experience itself became sharply contested. By the 1590s reformist Protestants in both England and Scotland discounted the Roman Empire and ultimately the entire arc of Roman history. Instead, they looked to the Hebrew commonwealth, Jewish learning, and, increasingly, contemporary Jews. These developments issued in a preoccupation with Judeocentric prophecy and piety. In stark contrast, anti-reform Protestantism constructed a competing Christocentric piety linked with a resolutely imperial vision. At the center of this emergent push-pull within late sixteenth-century Anglophone spirituality lay conflicted readings of the Roman past.
{"title":"Roman Past, Jewish Future: Prophecy, Poetry, and the End of Empire","authors":"A. Williamson","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0025","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Although classical political values and their Latin sources continuously informed Elizabethan and Jacobean public culture, assessment of the Roman experience itself became sharply contested. By the 1590s reformist Protestants in both England and Scotland discounted the Roman Empire and ultimately the entire arc of Roman history. Instead, they looked to the Hebrew commonwealth, Jewish learning, and, increasingly, contemporary Jews. These developments issued in a preoccupation with Judeocentric prophecy and piety. In stark contrast, anti-reform Protestantism constructed a competing Christocentric piety linked with a resolutely imperial vision. At the center of this emergent push-pull within late sixteenth-century Anglophone spirituality lay conflicted readings of the Roman past.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"27 1","pages":"567 - 589"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86650990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Edmund Bolton's commentary on Tacitus's Annals, books 1–6, in his Averrunci or The Skowrers (1634) represents the first scholarly challenge to Tacitus's authority as historian of the Roman Empire and the earliest revisionist portrait of the emperor Tiberius. While expanding on a number of themes in the introduction to the 2017 edition of Bolton's manuscript, this essay focuses on his reappraisal of Tiberius's reign and on the dual perspectives Bolton brings to his work, as a devoted (Catholic) monarchist examining a crucial stage in the consolidation of the principate, and as a historian of Rome reflecting upon "the most ponderous worldlie controversie" of his own day.
埃德蒙·博尔顿(Edmund Bolton)在其著作《阿弗伦齐》(Averrunci or The Skowrers)(1634)中对塔西佗编年史1-6卷的评论，是对塔西佗作为罗马帝国历史学家权威的第一次学术挑战，也是对提比略皇帝最早的修正主义描述。本文在2017年版博尔顿手稿的前言中扩展了一些主题，重点关注他对提比略统治的重新评价，以及博尔顿在其作品中带来的双重视角，作为一个虔诚的(天主教)君主主义者，审视元首制巩固的关键阶段，作为一个罗马历史学家，反思他那个时代“最严重的世界争议”。
{"title":"In Defense of Tiberius: Edmund Bolton, Tacitean Scholarship, and Early Stuart Politics","authors":"P. Osmond","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0019","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Edmund Bolton's commentary on Tacitus's Annals, books 1–6, in his Averrunci or The Skowrers (1634) represents the first scholarly challenge to Tacitus's authority as historian of the Roman Empire and the earliest revisionist portrait of the emperor Tiberius. While expanding on a number of themes in the introduction to the 2017 edition of Bolton's manuscript, this essay focuses on his reappraisal of Tiberius's reign and on the dual perspectives Bolton brings to his work, as a devoted (Catholic) monarchist examining a crucial stage in the consolidation of the principate, and as a historian of Rome reflecting upon \"the most ponderous worldlie controversie\" of his own day.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"41 1","pages":"591 - 613"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87923093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:While historians have investigated how early modern Europeans gleaned instrumental lessons from ancient military sources, Nicholas Popper argues that this form of reading was part of a broad range of interpretative strategies derived from practices of historical analysis that figures like Machiavelli, Justus Lipsius, and Walter Ralegh directed to military texts. Historical modes of reading also underlay the methods of soldiers and scholars who devised alternative and arcane accounts of military success that challenged what they saw as the amorality of the new military science. By placing English military reading and writing in a wider context, the essay suggests that ancient Roman warfare emerged not only as a model for imitation but also as an instrument for assessing the providential significance of the forces threatening and protecting early modern Europe.
{"title":"Virtue and Providence: Perceptions of Ancient Roman Warfare in Early Modern England","authors":"N. Popper","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0021","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:While historians have investigated how early modern Europeans gleaned instrumental lessons from ancient military sources, Nicholas Popper argues that this form of reading was part of a broad range of interpretative strategies derived from practices of historical analysis that figures like Machiavelli, Justus Lipsius, and Walter Ralegh directed to military texts. Historical modes of reading also underlay the methods of soldiers and scholars who devised alternative and arcane accounts of military success that challenged what they saw as the amorality of the new military science. By placing English military reading and writing in a wider context, the essay suggests that ancient Roman warfare emerged not only as a model for imitation but also as an instrument for assessing the providential significance of the forces threatening and protecting early modern Europe.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"49 1","pages":"519 - 541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87562286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:This essay reassesses the role of Tacitus in England, arguing that instead of initiating radically novel ways of understanding politics, his works served to reinforce and refine attitudes already present within English culture, derived from both classical and chivalric traditions as well as from practical experience. He was especially influential in shaping ideas about Roman warfare, the activities of informers and spies in incriminating Catholic aristocrats, and ways in which royal envy and jealousy exposed men of active virtue to attacks by court rivals. His Agricola and Germania provided important sources for information about the ancient history of Britain and the English.
{"title":"Varieties of Tacitism","authors":"R. Smuts","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0023","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This essay reassesses the role of Tacitus in England, arguing that instead of initiating radically novel ways of understanding politics, his works served to reinforce and refine attitudes already present within English culture, derived from both classical and chivalric traditions as well as from practical experience. He was especially influential in shaping ideas about Roman warfare, the activities of informers and spies in incriminating Catholic aristocrats, and ways in which royal envy and jealousy exposed men of active virtue to attacks by court rivals. His Agricola and Germania provided important sources for information about the ancient history of Britain and the English.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"53 1","pages":"441 - 465"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91303367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Roman political history and imperial practice offered persuasion or violent coercion as alternative paradigms for imposing dominion over new territories and establishing new settlements in them. Both were used by the early modern English as guides for conquest and the imposition of effective imperial rule over peoples they considered barbarous, first in colonizing new territories in Ireland and then, with their Irish experience in the Tudor age as a model, in colonial Virginia. In each instance, "civilizing" the indigenous populations was treated not as an end in itself, but as a means to bring them under effective rule, with coercion eventually winning the day.
{"title":"Love and Fear in the Making of England's Atlantic Empire","authors":"D. Sacks","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0022","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Roman political history and imperial practice offered persuasion or violent coercion as alternative paradigms for imposing dominion over new territories and establishing new settlements in them. Both were used by the early modern English as guides for conquest and the imposition of effective imperial rule over peoples they considered barbarous, first in colonizing new territories in Ireland and then, with their Irish experience in the Tudor age as a model, in colonial Virginia. In each instance, \"civilizing\" the indigenous populations was treated not as an end in itself, but as a means to bring them under effective rule, with coercion eventually winning the day.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"28 1","pages":"543 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81392097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay illustrates the subterranean presence of classical writing in seventeenth-century English political thinking. It shows how Ben Jonson’s Catiline his Conspiracy (1611), a dramatization of Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae, penetrated the mind of one of Jonson’s disciples, the eminent statesman and royalist historian Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. Over the decades after Jonson’s death, the play helped Clarendon, as well as other followers of Charles I, to make sense of the nation’s descent into civil war and revolution.
{"title":"Ben Jonson, the Earl of Clarendon, and the Conspiracy of Catiline","authors":"Blair Worden","doi":"10.1353/hlq.0.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.0.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This essay illustrates the subterranean presence of classical writing in seventeenth-century English political thinking. It shows how Ben Jonson’s Catiline his Conspiracy (1611), a dramatization of Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae, penetrated the mind of one of Jonson’s disciples, the eminent statesman and royalist historian Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. Over the decades after Jonson’s death, the play helped Clarendon, as well as other followers of Charles I, to make sense of the nation’s descent into civil war and revolution.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"310 1","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76442956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：