集体理解、激进主义和文学史,1645-1742,Melissa Mowry(评论)

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1353/ecs.2023.0041
Peter Degabriele
{"title":"集体理解、激进主义和文学史,1645-1742,Melissa Mowry(评论)","authors":"Peter Degabriele","doi":"10.1353/ecs.2023.0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Melissa Mowry’s Collective Understanding, Radicalism, and Literary History follows the traces of a non-elite communal practice of hermeneutics and a collectivist politics in seventeenthand eighteenth-century English literary history. The book has five chapters, the first of which functions as an introduction, as well as a short but provocative coda. Throughout, Mowry looks to the Levellers as the positive articulation of a collective hermeneutics that she claims has been buried by the standard narrative of the rise of liberal individualism, and she argues that the political and literary history of the period she examines should be reconceived as a consistent attempt to eradicate this collectivism in favor of a conservative individualism. This is in stark contrast to the conventional narrative of early eighteenthcentury political and literary history which argues that an individualist ideology produced a new liberal and anti-absolutist politics. For Mowry, by contrast, the theater of the Restoration and early novels by Defoe worked tirelessly to disavow the possibility of collectivist thought and politics. This refraction of the traditional narrative throws up some surprising and enlightening results. The Tory Aphra Behn and the dissenting Whig Daniel Defoe, for instance, are, in Mowry’s account, engaged in the same political project of anti-collectivism rather than existing on opposite sides of a partisan political spectrum. This new lens thus reorients our vision of this period and stands as a profound challenge to conventional ways of understanding the relation of Restoration and early eighteenth-century literature to political ideology.","PeriodicalId":45802,"journal":{"name":"EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective Understanding, Radicalism, and Literary History, 1645–1742 by Melissa Mowry (review)\",\"authors\":\"Peter Degabriele\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ecs.2023.0041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Melissa Mowry’s Collective Understanding, Radicalism, and Literary History follows the traces of a non-elite communal practice of hermeneutics and a collectivist politics in seventeenthand eighteenth-century English literary history. The book has five chapters, the first of which functions as an introduction, as well as a short but provocative coda. Throughout, Mowry looks to the Levellers as the positive articulation of a collective hermeneutics that she claims has been buried by the standard narrative of the rise of liberal individualism, and she argues that the political and literary history of the period she examines should be reconceived as a consistent attempt to eradicate this collectivism in favor of a conservative individualism. This is in stark contrast to the conventional narrative of early eighteenthcentury political and literary history which argues that an individualist ideology produced a new liberal and anti-absolutist politics. For Mowry, by contrast, the theater of the Restoration and early novels by Defoe worked tirelessly to disavow the possibility of collectivist thought and politics. This refraction of the traditional narrative throws up some surprising and enlightening results. The Tory Aphra Behn and the dissenting Whig Daniel Defoe, for instance, are, in Mowry’s account, engaged in the same political project of anti-collectivism rather than existing on opposite sides of a partisan political spectrum. This new lens thus reorients our vision of this period and stands as a profound challenge to conventional ways of understanding the relation of Restoration and early eighteenth-century literature to political ideology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ecs.2023.0041\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ecs.2023.0041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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

梅丽莎·莫瑞的《集体理解、激进主义和文学史》追溯了十七、十八世纪英国文学史上非精英的解释学集体实践和集体主义政治。这本书有五章,第一章是引言,还有一个简短但富有煽动性的结尾。自始至终,莫瑞将Levellers视为一种集体解释学的积极表达,她声称这种集体解释学已经被自由主义个人主义兴起的标准叙事所掩盖,她认为,她所研究的那个时期的政治和文学史应该被重新视为根除这种集体主义而支持保守主义个人主义的一贯尝试。这与八世纪初政治和文学史上的传统叙事形成了鲜明对比,后者认为个人主义意识形态产生了新的自由主义和反绝对主义政治。相反,对莫来说,复辟时期的戏剧和笛福早期的小说不知疲倦地否认了集体主义思想和政治的可能性。这种对传统叙事的折射带来了一些令人惊讶和启发的结果。例如,在莫里的描述中,保守党人阿弗拉·贝恩和持不同意见的辉格党人丹尼尔·笛福参与了同一个反集体主义的政治项目,而不是存在于党派政治光谱的对立一边。因此,这种新的视角重新定位了我们对这一时期的看法,并对理解复辟和18世纪早期文学与政治意识形态关系的传统方式构成了深刻挑战。
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
Collective Understanding, Radicalism, and Literary History, 1645–1742 by Melissa Mowry (review)
Melissa Mowry’s Collective Understanding, Radicalism, and Literary History follows the traces of a non-elite communal practice of hermeneutics and a collectivist politics in seventeenthand eighteenth-century English literary history. The book has five chapters, the first of which functions as an introduction, as well as a short but provocative coda. Throughout, Mowry looks to the Levellers as the positive articulation of a collective hermeneutics that she claims has been buried by the standard narrative of the rise of liberal individualism, and she argues that the political and literary history of the period she examines should be reconceived as a consistent attempt to eradicate this collectivism in favor of a conservative individualism. This is in stark contrast to the conventional narrative of early eighteenthcentury political and literary history which argues that an individualist ideology produced a new liberal and anti-absolutist politics. For Mowry, by contrast, the theater of the Restoration and early novels by Defoe worked tirelessly to disavow the possibility of collectivist thought and politics. This refraction of the traditional narrative throws up some surprising and enlightening results. The Tory Aphra Behn and the dissenting Whig Daniel Defoe, for instance, are, in Mowry’s account, engaged in the same political project of anti-collectivism rather than existing on opposite sides of a partisan political spectrum. This new lens thus reorients our vision of this period and stands as a profound challenge to conventional ways of understanding the relation of Restoration and early eighteenth-century literature to political ideology.
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
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: As the official publication of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS), Eighteenth-Century Studies is committed to publishing the best of current writing on all aspects of eighteenth-century culture. The journal selects essays that employ different modes of analysis and disciplinary discourses to explore how recent historiographical, critical, and theoretical ideas have engaged scholars concerned with the eighteenth century.
期刊最新文献
Polemics, Literature, and Knowledge in Eighteenth-Century Mexico: A New World for the Republic of Letters by José Francisco Robles (review) The New Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson ed. by Greg Clingham (review) Prince Eugene of Savoy: A Genius for War Against Louis XIV and the Ottoman Empire by James Falkner, and: Charles XII's Karoliners, Vol.1: Swedish Infantry and Artillery of the Great Northern War 1700–1721 by Sergey Shamenkov (review) The Temple of Fame and Friendship: Portraits, Music, and History in the C. P. E. Bach Circle by Annette Richards (review) Pathologies of Motion: Historical Thinking in Medicine, Aesthetics, and Poetics by Kevis Goodman (review)
×
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