{"title":"将“现代”置于“经典”系列中:j.m.登特的《普通人的图书馆》","authors":"Caterina Domeneghini","doi":"10.1093/crj/clad011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study offers a reappraisal of Everyman’s Library, the mass-market series of world 'classics' launched by the British publisher J. M. Dent & Sons in 1906. The collection’s reliance on the 1842 and 1911 Copyright Acts has fostered a misconception within literary studies: namely, that reprint series were ‘impervious to novelty’. Conversely, I argue that ‘liveliness’ and ‘timeliness’—being in line with current trends and (re)printed at the right moment—became fundamental ‘classic’ attributes during the interwar years. Everyman advanced a rhetoric of the ‘new’ besides a rhetoric of the ‘old’, based on the idea that what consecrated both terms was only the passage of time, a gaze from the future. When Dent’s series started featuring more contemporaneous authors, the American Modern Library (1917), formally considered its modern(ist) alter ego, began including more ‘classic’ literature instead. Both series exploited the tension between ancients and moderns as profitable: Confucius and Horace were advertised as ‘the classics which are still modern: the modern works which have become classics’. Exploring the blurry boundaries between ‘classic’ and ‘modern’ as marketing categories, this paper draws on the J. M. Dent & Sons Records, Chapel Hill to bridge the gap between modernism and mass production.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Placing ‘moderns’ in a ‘classic’ series: the case of J. M. Dent’s Everyman’s Library\",\"authors\":\"Caterina Domeneghini\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/crj/clad011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This study offers a reappraisal of Everyman’s Library, the mass-market series of world 'classics' launched by the British publisher J. M. Dent & Sons in 1906. The collection’s reliance on the 1842 and 1911 Copyright Acts has fostered a misconception within literary studies: namely, that reprint series were ‘impervious to novelty’. Conversely, I argue that ‘liveliness’ and ‘timeliness’—being in line with current trends and (re)printed at the right moment—became fundamental ‘classic’ attributes during the interwar years. Everyman advanced a rhetoric of the ‘new’ besides a rhetoric of the ‘old’, based on the idea that what consecrated both terms was only the passage of time, a gaze from the future. When Dent’s series started featuring more contemporaneous authors, the American Modern Library (1917), formally considered its modern(ist) alter ego, began including more ‘classic’ literature instead. Both series exploited the tension between ancients and moderns as profitable: Confucius and Horace were advertised as ‘the classics which are still modern: the modern works which have become classics’. Exploring the blurry boundaries between ‘classic’ and ‘modern’ as marketing categories, this paper draws on the J. M. Dent & Sons Records, Chapel Hill to bridge the gap between modernism and mass production.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Classical Receptions Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Classical Receptions Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clad011\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Classical Receptions Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clad011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这项研究提供了对Everyman ' s Library的重新评价,这是英国出版商J. M. Dent & Sons于1906年推出的面向大众市场的世界“经典”系列。该文集依赖于1842年和1911年的版权法,这在文学研究中产生了一种误解:即,再版系列“不受新颖性的影响”。相反,我认为“活泼”和“及时性”——符合当前趋势并在合适的时机(重新)印刷——在两次世界大战期间成为了基本的“经典”属性。除了“旧”的修辞之外,每个人都提出了一种“新”的修辞,基于这样一种观念,即使这两个术语神圣化的只是时间的流逝,是对未来的凝视。当邓特的系列开始以更多同时代作家为特色时,美国现代图书馆(1917),正式被认为是其现代(列表)的另一个自我,开始包括更多的“经典”文学作品。这两个系列都利用了古今之间的紧张关系,并从中获利:孔子和贺拉斯被宣传为“仍然是现代的经典,现代的作品已经成为经典”。探索“经典”和“现代”作为营销类别之间的模糊界限,本文借鉴了J. M. Dent & Sons Records, Chapel Hill,以弥合现代主义和大规模生产之间的差距。
Placing ‘moderns’ in a ‘classic’ series: the case of J. M. Dent’s Everyman’s Library
This study offers a reappraisal of Everyman’s Library, the mass-market series of world 'classics' launched by the British publisher J. M. Dent & Sons in 1906. The collection’s reliance on the 1842 and 1911 Copyright Acts has fostered a misconception within literary studies: namely, that reprint series were ‘impervious to novelty’. Conversely, I argue that ‘liveliness’ and ‘timeliness’—being in line with current trends and (re)printed at the right moment—became fundamental ‘classic’ attributes during the interwar years. Everyman advanced a rhetoric of the ‘new’ besides a rhetoric of the ‘old’, based on the idea that what consecrated both terms was only the passage of time, a gaze from the future. When Dent’s series started featuring more contemporaneous authors, the American Modern Library (1917), formally considered its modern(ist) alter ego, began including more ‘classic’ literature instead. Both series exploited the tension between ancients and moderns as profitable: Confucius and Horace were advertised as ‘the classics which are still modern: the modern works which have become classics’. Exploring the blurry boundaries between ‘classic’ and ‘modern’ as marketing categories, this paper draws on the J. M. Dent & Sons Records, Chapel Hill to bridge the gap between modernism and mass production.