吟游诗人之战:鞭笞与无骑士气概

W. Brewer
{"title":"吟游诗人之战:鞭笞与无骑士气概","authors":"W. Brewer","doi":"10.3828/eir.2020.27.2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nOn 18 August 1800, the satirist John Wolcot (aka Peter Pindar) entered a London bookshop and assaulted a fellow satirist, William Gifford, with a cane. This essay examines their feud within the contexts of Romantic-era notions of chivalric masculinity and the class symbolism of caning. Both middle-class writers felt entitled to deploy chivalric rhetoric and physical violence and insisted that they were honorably defending their reputations. But they grossly miscalculated how their hyperaggressive behavior and emasculatory rhetoric would be received during a time in which the code of gentlemanliness was evolving. Although Gifford’s adherents pronounced him the victor of the battle of the bards, neither satirist performed chivalric masculinity convincingly, and their mutual character assassination campaigns undercut their claims to gentlemanly status. The British print media’s responses to the Wolcot—Gifford caning affair provide insights into the inchoate embourgeoisement and shifting conceptions of chivalric masculinity during the Romantic period.","PeriodicalId":281500,"journal":{"name":"Essays in Romanticism","volume":"263 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Battle of the Bards: Canings and Unchivalrous Masculinity\",\"authors\":\"W. Brewer\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/eir.2020.27.2.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nOn 18 August 1800, the satirist John Wolcot (aka Peter Pindar) entered a London bookshop and assaulted a fellow satirist, William Gifford, with a cane. This essay examines their feud within the contexts of Romantic-era notions of chivalric masculinity and the class symbolism of caning. Both middle-class writers felt entitled to deploy chivalric rhetoric and physical violence and insisted that they were honorably defending their reputations. But they grossly miscalculated how their hyperaggressive behavior and emasculatory rhetoric would be received during a time in which the code of gentlemanliness was evolving. Although Gifford’s adherents pronounced him the victor of the battle of the bards, neither satirist performed chivalric masculinity convincingly, and their mutual character assassination campaigns undercut their claims to gentlemanly status. The British print media’s responses to the Wolcot—Gifford caning affair provide insights into the inchoate embourgeoisement and shifting conceptions of chivalric masculinity during the Romantic period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":281500,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Essays in Romanticism\",\"volume\":\"263 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Essays in Romanticism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/eir.2020.27.2.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Essays in Romanticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/eir.2020.27.2.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1800年8月18日,讽刺作家约翰·沃尔科特(又名彼得·品达)走进伦敦一家书店,用手杖袭击了讽刺作家威廉·吉福德。这篇文章考察了他们的世仇在浪漫主义时代的侠义男子气概和阶级象征鞭打的背景下。这两位中产阶级作家都觉得自己有权使用骑士般的修辞和身体暴力,并坚称他们是在光荣地捍卫自己的声誉。但他们严重错误地估计到了,在一个绅士风度准则正在演变的时代,他们的过度攻击行为和男子气的言辞将如何被接受。尽管吉福德的追随者宣称他是吟游诗人之战的胜利者,但这两位讽刺作家都没有令人信服地表现出骑士的男子气概,他们相互诋毁的行为削弱了他们对绅士地位的主张。英国纸媒对沃尔科特-吉福德鞭刑事件的反应,让我们深入了解了浪漫主义时期早期的资产阶级化和骑士男子气概观念的转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Battle of the Bards: Canings and Unchivalrous Masculinity
On 18 August 1800, the satirist John Wolcot (aka Peter Pindar) entered a London bookshop and assaulted a fellow satirist, William Gifford, with a cane. This essay examines their feud within the contexts of Romantic-era notions of chivalric masculinity and the class symbolism of caning. Both middle-class writers felt entitled to deploy chivalric rhetoric and physical violence and insisted that they were honorably defending their reputations. But they grossly miscalculated how their hyperaggressive behavior and emasculatory rhetoric would be received during a time in which the code of gentlemanliness was evolving. Although Gifford’s adherents pronounced him the victor of the battle of the bards, neither satirist performed chivalric masculinity convincingly, and their mutual character assassination campaigns undercut their claims to gentlemanly status. The British print media’s responses to the Wolcot—Gifford caning affair provide insights into the inchoate embourgeoisement and shifting conceptions of chivalric masculinity during the Romantic period.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信