{"title":"Physical Disability in British Romantic Literature by Essaka Joshua (review)","authors":"Emily B. Stanback","doi":"10.1353/srm.2022.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"exorbitant kind of Enlightenment that he stands for, then to point out that Hamann is so uncannily similar to Blake, only to conclude that this shows how useless the categories of “Enlightenment” and “Romanticism” are in the first place looks like a sleight of hand that, in full view, has gone terribly wrong. Hamann and Blake as representatives of “Exorbitant Enlightenment”? No way. This is an extraordinary, in parts even brilliant study when it is committed to “the deep study of primary texts, their historical contexts, and their conceptual import” (28). It fails exactly when it fails to substantiate its claim to show compellingly that, because of some highly interesting currents that connect anti-Enlightenment figures with william Blake, it no longer makes sense to speak of “Enlightenment” or “Romanticism.” That is a claim that is simply—no, not exorbitant, that would be cheap—but simply extravagant. That is the bad news. The good news is that Regier’s second tale by no means follows from his first. Read his study for the sake of the first, the elucidation of a highly fascinating constellation of Anglo-German relations. It is not vitiated by the excessive claims made for the second.","PeriodicalId":44848,"journal":{"name":"STUDIES IN ROMANTICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"STUDIES IN ROMANTICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/srm.2022.0034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
exorbitant kind of Enlightenment that he stands for, then to point out that Hamann is so uncannily similar to Blake, only to conclude that this shows how useless the categories of “Enlightenment” and “Romanticism” are in the first place looks like a sleight of hand that, in full view, has gone terribly wrong. Hamann and Blake as representatives of “Exorbitant Enlightenment”? No way. This is an extraordinary, in parts even brilliant study when it is committed to “the deep study of primary texts, their historical contexts, and their conceptual import” (28). It fails exactly when it fails to substantiate its claim to show compellingly that, because of some highly interesting currents that connect anti-Enlightenment figures with william Blake, it no longer makes sense to speak of “Enlightenment” or “Romanticism.” That is a claim that is simply—no, not exorbitant, that would be cheap—but simply extravagant. That is the bad news. The good news is that Regier’s second tale by no means follows from his first. Read his study for the sake of the first, the elucidation of a highly fascinating constellation of Anglo-German relations. It is not vitiated by the excessive claims made for the second.
期刊介绍:
Studies in Romanticism was founded in 1961 by David Bonnell Green at a time when it was still possible to wonder whether "romanticism" was a term worth theorizing (as Morse Peckham deliberated in the first essay of the first number). It seemed that it was, and, ever since, SiR (as it is known to abbreviation) has flourished under a fine succession of editors: Edwin Silverman, W. H. Stevenson, Charles Stone III, Michael Cooke, Morton Palet, and (continuously since 1978) David Wagenknecht. There are other fine journals in which scholars of romanticism feel it necessary to appear - and over the years there are a few important scholars of the period who have not been represented there by important work.