多萝西娅的排水之梦

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.5325/georelioghlstud.73.2.0128
McCauley
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当多萝西娅·布鲁克想象一个乌托邦式的社区时,她想象的是耗尽土地。这种对灌溉的关注成为19世纪政治经济和财产理论分歧的汇合点。排水反映了一种普遍的无用恐惧——无论是浪费的土地还是学术的泥潭。然而,这种融合并不是全面的。自然史提供了对排水的批判,艾略特自己的作品以两种相反的排水理论为标志:增加价值的循环或减去价值的循环。这些关注成为文学研究的主要隐喻:领域的一个考虑点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Dorothea Dreams of Drains
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies
George Eliot-George Henry Lewes Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Spinoza’s Ethics Special Section: The Correspondence of G. H. Lewes and Charles Darwin Communities of Care: The Social Ethics of Victorian Fiction; The Science of Character: Human Objecthood and the Ends of Victorian Realism “Nay, is there not a pathos in their very insignificance?”: Συμπάθεια in “The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton” The Correspondence of G. H. Lewes and Charles Darwin
×
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