{"title":"中世纪英国浪漫主义小说的流行维尔玛·布尔乔亚·里士满(书评)","authors":"R. L. Kindrick","doi":"10.2307/1346830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Professor Richmond begins her study by posing a scholarly dilemma: In view of the attitudes of modern readers, how is the earlier popularity of the Middle English romance to be explained? She argues that obviously we are in need of a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste to comprehend why the romance flourished, and she believes that a key factor is the homogeneity of interests and attitudes in all segments of the medieval audience. As she sees it, the controlling vision of the authors of romance is distinctly Christian and shows \"the ultimate triumph offirm moral purpose.\" (p. 24). To support her thesis, Professor Richmond analyzes several romances organized under the rubrics of \"Fortune's Heroes,\" \"Fiendish Origins Transformed,\" \"Friendship and Brotherhood,\" and \"The Delights of Love.\" She provides four examples for each of the first two categories, three for each of the last two, but she believes that her examples are broadly representative of the general habit of thinking that informed Middle English romance. She devotes her most substantial analysis to \"Guy of Warwick,\" which she considers in a chapter to itself. The book has its merits: Generally Professor Richmond's style is quite readable, and she has provided substantial secondary documentation. However, the book also has some serious flaws. While Professor Richmond's subject is a worthy one, to master it requires a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste than she has provided. There is very little on the roles of Chivalry and courtly love in the romance, except as whipping boys for the doctrinaire authors she posits. Similarly, all aspects of the supernatural are either subordinated to religion or serve primarily as foils, ultimately to be vanquished in the cause of theology. Even medieval attitudes toward religion are sometimes stereotyped or incompletely presented, an especially grave flaw given her approach. Professor Richmond has chosen an interesting subject, one she might better pursue from a broader perspective. While her book provides a compendium of religious interpretations of the tales, her argument remains to be proven.","PeriodicalId":326714,"journal":{"name":"Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Popularity of the Middle English Romance by Velma Bourgeois Richmond (review)\",\"authors\":\"R. L. Kindrick\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/1346830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Professor Richmond begins her study by posing a scholarly dilemma: In view of the attitudes of modern readers, how is the earlier popularity of the Middle English romance to be explained? She argues that obviously we are in need of a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste to comprehend why the romance flourished, and she believes that a key factor is the homogeneity of interests and attitudes in all segments of the medieval audience. As she sees it, the controlling vision of the authors of romance is distinctly Christian and shows \\\"the ultimate triumph offirm moral purpose.\\\" (p. 24). To support her thesis, Professor Richmond analyzes several romances organized under the rubrics of \\\"Fortune's Heroes,\\\" \\\"Fiendish Origins Transformed,\\\" \\\"Friendship and Brotherhood,\\\" and \\\"The Delights of Love.\\\" She provides four examples for each of the first two categories, three for each of the last two, but she believes that her examples are broadly representative of the general habit of thinking that informed Middle English romance. She devotes her most substantial analysis to \\\"Guy of Warwick,\\\" which she considers in a chapter to itself. The book has its merits: Generally Professor Richmond's style is quite readable, and she has provided substantial secondary documentation. However, the book also has some serious flaws. While Professor Richmond's subject is a worthy one, to master it requires a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste than she has provided. There is very little on the roles of Chivalry and courtly love in the romance, except as whipping boys for the doctrinaire authors she posits. Similarly, all aspects of the supernatural are either subordinated to religion or serve primarily as foils, ultimately to be vanquished in the cause of theology. Even medieval attitudes toward religion are sometimes stereotyped or incompletely presented, an especially grave flaw given her approach. Professor Richmond has chosen an interesting subject, one she might better pursue from a broader perspective. While her book provides a compendium of religious interpretations of the tales, her argument remains to be proven.\",\"PeriodicalId\":326714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/1346830\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1346830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
里士满教授在她的研究开始时提出了一个学术困境:鉴于现代读者的态度,如何解释中世纪英语浪漫小说早期的流行?她认为,很明显,我们需要对中世纪的品味标准有更广泛的理解,才能理解为什么浪漫文学如此盛行。她认为,一个关键因素是,中世纪所有读者的兴趣和态度都是同质的。在她看来,浪漫小说作者的控制视角明显是基督教的,展现了“最终的胜利,坚定的道德目标”。(24页)。为了支持她的论文,里士满教授分析了几部以“财富的英雄”、“恶魔起源的转变”、“友谊与兄弟情谊”和“爱的乐趣”为标题的爱情小说。她为前两类各提供了四个例子,后两类各提供了三个例子,但她相信她的例子大致代表了中世纪英语浪漫主义的一般思维习惯。她对《沃里克的盖伊》(Guy of Warwick)进行了最实质性的分析,她用了一章来单独考虑这本书。这本书有它的优点:总的来说,里士满教授的风格是相当可读的,她提供了大量的次要文件。然而,这本书也有一些严重的缺陷。虽然里士满教授的主题很有价值,但要掌握它,需要对中世纪的品味标准有更广泛的理解,而不是她所提供的。在这部浪漫小说中,骑士精神和宫廷爱情的作用很少,除了作为教条主义作者的替罪羊。同样,超自然的所有方面要么从属于宗教,要么主要作为陪衬,最终在神学的事业中被征服。即使是中世纪对宗教的态度有时也是刻板的或不完整的,鉴于她的方法,这是一个特别严重的缺陷。里士满教授选择了一个有趣的课题,她最好从更广阔的角度来研究这个课题。虽然她的书提供了对这些故事的宗教解释的概要,但她的论点仍有待证实。
The Popularity of the Middle English Romance by Velma Bourgeois Richmond (review)
Professor Richmond begins her study by posing a scholarly dilemma: In view of the attitudes of modern readers, how is the earlier popularity of the Middle English romance to be explained? She argues that obviously we are in need of a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste to comprehend why the romance flourished, and she believes that a key factor is the homogeneity of interests and attitudes in all segments of the medieval audience. As she sees it, the controlling vision of the authors of romance is distinctly Christian and shows "the ultimate triumph offirm moral purpose." (p. 24). To support her thesis, Professor Richmond analyzes several romances organized under the rubrics of "Fortune's Heroes," "Fiendish Origins Transformed," "Friendship and Brotherhood," and "The Delights of Love." She provides four examples for each of the first two categories, three for each of the last two, but she believes that her examples are broadly representative of the general habit of thinking that informed Middle English romance. She devotes her most substantial analysis to "Guy of Warwick," which she considers in a chapter to itself. The book has its merits: Generally Professor Richmond's style is quite readable, and she has provided substantial secondary documentation. However, the book also has some serious flaws. While Professor Richmond's subject is a worthy one, to master it requires a broader understanding of medieval standards of taste than she has provided. There is very little on the roles of Chivalry and courtly love in the romance, except as whipping boys for the doctrinaire authors she posits. Similarly, all aspects of the supernatural are either subordinated to religion or serve primarily as foils, ultimately to be vanquished in the cause of theology. Even medieval attitudes toward religion are sometimes stereotyped or incompletely presented, an especially grave flaw given her approach. Professor Richmond has chosen an interesting subject, one she might better pursue from a broader perspective. While her book provides a compendium of religious interpretations of the tales, her argument remains to be proven.