{"title":"多萝西娅的排水之梦","authors":"McCauley","doi":"10.5325/georelioghlstud.73.2.0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n When Dorothea Brooke imagines a utopian community, she imagines draining the land. This concern with irrigation becomes a point of confluence for otherwise divergent theories of political economy and property within the nineteenth century. Drainage reflects a common horror of uselessness—whether wasted lands or the quagmires of scholarship. Yet this confluence is not totalizing. Natural history offers a critique of drainage, and Eliot's own work is marked by two contrary theories of drainage: circulation that adds value or circulation that subtracts value. These concerns then become a point for considering the primary metaphor of literary studies: the field.","PeriodicalId":40489,"journal":{"name":"George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dorothea Dreams of Drains\",\"authors\":\"McCauley\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/georelioghlstud.73.2.0128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n When Dorothea Brooke imagines a utopian community, she imagines draining the land. This concern with irrigation becomes a point of confluence for otherwise divergent theories of political economy and property within the nineteenth century. Drainage reflects a common horror of uselessness—whether wasted lands or the quagmires of scholarship. Yet this confluence is not totalizing. Natural history offers a critique of drainage, and Eliot's own work is marked by two contrary theories of drainage: circulation that adds value or circulation that subtracts value. These concerns then become a point for considering the primary metaphor of literary studies: the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/georelioghlstud.73.2.0128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/georelioghlstud.73.2.0128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
When Dorothea Brooke imagines a utopian community, she imagines draining the land. This concern with irrigation becomes a point of confluence for otherwise divergent theories of political economy and property within the nineteenth century. Drainage reflects a common horror of uselessness—whether wasted lands or the quagmires of scholarship. Yet this confluence is not totalizing. Natural history offers a critique of drainage, and Eliot's own work is marked by two contrary theories of drainage: circulation that adds value or circulation that subtracts value. These concerns then become a point for considering the primary metaphor of literary studies: the field.