威廉姆斯、不合时宜与文本复原的时间逻辑(1776/1815/1969)

IF 0.6 2区 文学 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
Matthew Pethers
{"title":"威廉姆斯、不合时宜与文本复原的时间逻辑(1776/1815/1969)","authors":"Matthew Pethers","doi":"10.1093/alh/ajad230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article takes the distinctive publishing history of William Williams’s Robinsonade novel Mr. Penrose as a prompt to challenge conventional assumptions about the temporal logic of textual recovery. Scholars typically make a case for the value of forgotten or neglected texts by emphasizing forms of “creative anachronism” in which an author is said to be ahead of their time in ways only recognizable by posterity. Mr. Penrose, written in America in 1776, published in a heavily redacted version in Britain in 1815, and finally published in full in 1969, offers a means of apprehending the far less familiar dynamics of “pathetic anachronism,” wherein a text repeatedly fails to connect with the successive historical moments of its appearance and remains uncanonized. This stalled trajectory of Williams’s novel helps to illuminate the limitations of conventional discourses of textual recovery by tracing them back to tropes of the “found manuscript” and transatlantic shifts in genre popularity in the eighteenth century, as well as Romantic theories of temporal disjunction and the emergence of the historical novel in the nineteenth century and models of textual editing and debates over “the first American novel” in the twentieth century.These three versions of Williams’s novel . . . help us to see how various intellectual, aesthetic, generic, and material factors can mitigate against a text fitting into the mechanisms critics typically deploy to advance the positive qualities of anachronism.","PeriodicalId":45821,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"William Williams, Anachronism, and the Temporal Logic of Textual Recovery (1776/1815/1969)\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Pethers\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/alh/ajad230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article takes the distinctive publishing history of William Williams’s Robinsonade novel Mr. Penrose as a prompt to challenge conventional assumptions about the temporal logic of textual recovery. Scholars typically make a case for the value of forgotten or neglected texts by emphasizing forms of “creative anachronism” in which an author is said to be ahead of their time in ways only recognizable by posterity. Mr. Penrose, written in America in 1776, published in a heavily redacted version in Britain in 1815, and finally published in full in 1969, offers a means of apprehending the far less familiar dynamics of “pathetic anachronism,” wherein a text repeatedly fails to connect with the successive historical moments of its appearance and remains uncanonized. This stalled trajectory of Williams’s novel helps to illuminate the limitations of conventional discourses of textual recovery by tracing them back to tropes of the “found manuscript” and transatlantic shifts in genre popularity in the eighteenth century, as well as Romantic theories of temporal disjunction and the emergence of the historical novel in the nineteenth century and models of textual editing and debates over “the first American novel” in the twentieth century.These three versions of Williams’s novel . . . help us to see how various intellectual, aesthetic, generic, and material factors can mitigate against a text fitting into the mechanisms critics typically deploy to advance the positive qualities of anachronism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajad230\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, AMERICAN\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajad230","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以威廉-威廉斯(William Williams)的《鲁滨逊时代》(Robinsonade)小说《彭罗斯先生》(Mr. Penrose)独特的出版史为线索,挑战关于文本恢复的时间逻辑的传统假设。学者们在论证被遗忘或被忽视文本的价值时,通常会强调 "创造性的不合时宜 "的形式,在这种形式中,作者被认为以只有后人才能识别的方式领先于他们的时代。彭罗斯先生》1776 年写于美国,1815 年在英国以经过大量删节的版本出版,最后于 1969 年全文出版,它提供了一种理解 "可悲的不合时宜 "动态的方法,在这种动态中,一个文本一再无法与它出现的连续历史时刻相联系,一直未被正统化。威廉斯小说的这一停滞轨迹有助于揭示传统文本复原论述的局限性,追溯到十八世纪 "发现手稿 "的陈词滥调和跨大西洋的体裁流行变化,十九世纪浪漫主义的时空错乱理论和历史小说的出现,以及二十世纪的文本编辑模式和关于 "第一部美国小说 "的争论。威廉斯小说的这三个版本......帮助我们了解了各种思想、美学、通用和物质因素是如何阻碍文本融入评论家通常用来宣传不合时宜的积极品质的机制的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
William Williams, Anachronism, and the Temporal Logic of Textual Recovery (1776/1815/1969)
This article takes the distinctive publishing history of William Williams’s Robinsonade novel Mr. Penrose as a prompt to challenge conventional assumptions about the temporal logic of textual recovery. Scholars typically make a case for the value of forgotten or neglected texts by emphasizing forms of “creative anachronism” in which an author is said to be ahead of their time in ways only recognizable by posterity. Mr. Penrose, written in America in 1776, published in a heavily redacted version in Britain in 1815, and finally published in full in 1969, offers a means of apprehending the far less familiar dynamics of “pathetic anachronism,” wherein a text repeatedly fails to connect with the successive historical moments of its appearance and remains uncanonized. This stalled trajectory of Williams’s novel helps to illuminate the limitations of conventional discourses of textual recovery by tracing them back to tropes of the “found manuscript” and transatlantic shifts in genre popularity in the eighteenth century, as well as Romantic theories of temporal disjunction and the emergence of the historical novel in the nineteenth century and models of textual editing and debates over “the first American novel” in the twentieth century.These three versions of Williams’s novel . . . help us to see how various intellectual, aesthetic, generic, and material factors can mitigate against a text fitting into the mechanisms critics typically deploy to advance the positive qualities of anachronism.
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
AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY
AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
178
期刊介绍: Recent Americanist scholarship has generated some of the most forceful responses to questions about literary history and theory. Yet too many of the most provocative essays have been scattered among a wide variety of narrowly focused publications. Covering the study of US literature from its origins through the present, American Literary History provides a much-needed forum for the various, often competing voices of contemporary literary inquiry. Along with an annual special issue, the journal features essay-reviews, commentaries, and critical exchanges. It welcomes articles on historical and theoretical problems as well as writers and works. Inter-disciplinary studies from related fields are also invited.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信