现代德国早期文学中的奥斯曼欧亚:文化翻译(方济各会,哈佩尔,斯佩尔)。Gerhild Scholz Williams。安娜堡:密歇根大学出版社,2021年。xii+234页,75美元。

IF 1.2 1区 历史学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
Indravati Félicité
{"title":"现代德国早期文学中的奥斯曼欧亚:文化翻译(方济各会,哈佩尔,斯佩尔)。Gerhild Scholz Williams。安娜堡:密歇根大学出版社,2021年。xii+234页,75美元。","authors":"Indravati Félicité","doi":"10.1017/rqx.2023.284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"their polemics advocating religious freedoms for Protestants; however, she notes that neither Milton nor Marvell was willing to extend these freedoms to Catholics. As for Arminian views on predestination, in chapter 5 Raamsdonk argues that for Milton, the story of Samson, an elected individual who appears to lose and regain divine grace, provided a problematic case for Calvinism and therefore an opportunity to express, in Samson Agonistes, his “agreement with three Arminian points (that grace is universal, grace is resistible, and free will is necessary for salvation)” (139). Marvell’s tract Remarks Upon a Late Disingenuous Discourse, meanwhile, suggests to Raamsdonk that he was receptive to Arminian views on predestination, though not willing to profess them. Overall, Raamsdonk’s study lends support to the traditional portrayals of Marvell as a proponent of moderation and diplomacy and Milton as a promoter of revolution and debate. Their differences become most evident when Raamsdonk concludes, in chapter 6, that Samson Agonistes endorses acts of violence carried out by those faithfully interpreting God’s will, a position untenable to Marvell, the author of numerous pacifistic texts. Still, the historical record suggests that the two men were friends. As for England and the Dutch Republic, Raamsdonk depicts the two states as too similar in their situations and aspirations to remain on friendly terms for long. Her book should prove most valuable to scholars of Milton and Marvell who are looking for fresh approaches to comparative readings of literature and culture.","PeriodicalId":45863,"journal":{"name":"RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY","volume":"76 1","pages":"775 - 777"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ottoman Eurasia in Early Modern German Literature: Cultural Translations (Francisci, Happel, Speer). Gerhild Scholz Williams. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2021. xii + 234 pp. $75.\",\"authors\":\"Indravati Félicité\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/rqx.2023.284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"their polemics advocating religious freedoms for Protestants; however, she notes that neither Milton nor Marvell was willing to extend these freedoms to Catholics. As for Arminian views on predestination, in chapter 5 Raamsdonk argues that for Milton, the story of Samson, an elected individual who appears to lose and regain divine grace, provided a problematic case for Calvinism and therefore an opportunity to express, in Samson Agonistes, his “agreement with three Arminian points (that grace is universal, grace is resistible, and free will is necessary for salvation)” (139). Marvell’s tract Remarks Upon a Late Disingenuous Discourse, meanwhile, suggests to Raamsdonk that he was receptive to Arminian views on predestination, though not willing to profess them. Overall, Raamsdonk’s study lends support to the traditional portrayals of Marvell as a proponent of moderation and diplomacy and Milton as a promoter of revolution and debate. Their differences become most evident when Raamsdonk concludes, in chapter 6, that Samson Agonistes endorses acts of violence carried out by those faithfully interpreting God’s will, a position untenable to Marvell, the author of numerous pacifistic texts. Still, the historical record suggests that the two men were friends. As for England and the Dutch Republic, Raamsdonk depicts the two states as too similar in their situations and aspirations to remain on friendly terms for long. Her book should prove most valuable to scholars of Milton and Marvell who are looking for fresh approaches to comparative readings of literature and culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"775 - 777\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/rqx.2023.284\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rqx.2023.284","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

他们的辩论主张新教徒的宗教自由;然而,她注意到弥尔顿和马维尔都不愿意将这些自由扩展到天主教徒。至于阿民念派关于宿命论的观点,在第5章,Raamsdonk认为,对于弥尔顿来说,参孙的故事,一个被选中的人,似乎失去了神的恩典,又重新获得了神的恩典,为加尔文主义提供了一个有问题的案例,因此,在参孙阿贡尼斯特中,他有机会表达他“同意阿民念派的三个观点(恩典是普遍的,恩典是不可抗拒的,自由意志是救赎所必需的)”(139)。与此同时,马维尔的小册子《对晚期虚伪话语的评论》向拉姆斯顿克暗示,他接受阿民念派关于预定论的观点,尽管不愿意承认它们。总的来说,Raamsdonk的研究支持了马维尔作为温和和外交的支持者和弥尔顿作为革命和辩论的推动者的传统形象。当Raamsdonk在第六章总结说参孙阿贡尼斯特赞同那些忠实地诠释上帝意志的人所实施的暴力行为时,他们的分歧变得最为明显,这一立场对马维尔来说是站不住脚的,马维尔是许多和平主义文本的作者。尽管如此,历史记录表明这两个人是朋友。至于英格兰和荷兰共和国,Raamsdonk认为这两个国家的处境和愿望太过相似,不可能长期保持友好关系。对于研究弥尔顿和马维尔的学者来说,她的书应该是最有价值的,因为他们正在寻找新的方法来比较文学和文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ottoman Eurasia in Early Modern German Literature: Cultural Translations (Francisci, Happel, Speer). Gerhild Scholz Williams. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2021. xii + 234 pp. $75.
their polemics advocating religious freedoms for Protestants; however, she notes that neither Milton nor Marvell was willing to extend these freedoms to Catholics. As for Arminian views on predestination, in chapter 5 Raamsdonk argues that for Milton, the story of Samson, an elected individual who appears to lose and regain divine grace, provided a problematic case for Calvinism and therefore an opportunity to express, in Samson Agonistes, his “agreement with three Arminian points (that grace is universal, grace is resistible, and free will is necessary for salvation)” (139). Marvell’s tract Remarks Upon a Late Disingenuous Discourse, meanwhile, suggests to Raamsdonk that he was receptive to Arminian views on predestination, though not willing to profess them. Overall, Raamsdonk’s study lends support to the traditional portrayals of Marvell as a proponent of moderation and diplomacy and Milton as a promoter of revolution and debate. Their differences become most evident when Raamsdonk concludes, in chapter 6, that Samson Agonistes endorses acts of violence carried out by those faithfully interpreting God’s will, a position untenable to Marvell, the author of numerous pacifistic texts. Still, the historical record suggests that the two men were friends. As for England and the Dutch Republic, Raamsdonk depicts the two states as too similar in their situations and aspirations to remain on friendly terms for long. Her book should prove most valuable to scholars of Milton and Marvell who are looking for fresh approaches to comparative readings of literature and culture.
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
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
16.70%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Starting with volume 62 (2009), the University of Chicago Press will publish Renaissance Quarterly on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America. Renaissance Quarterly is the leading American journal of Renaissance studies, encouraging connections between different scholarly approaches to bring together material spanning the period from 1300 to 1650 in Western history. The official journal of the Renaissance Society of America, RQ presents twelve to sixteen articles and over four hundred reviews per year.
×
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