{"title":"波利多利的《吸血鬼》:创作、出版、欺骗","authors":"Nick Groom","doi":"10.3366/rom.2022.0536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a detailed new analysis of the conception, composition, publication, and immediate reception of John William Polidori’s influential story, ‘The Vampyre’ (1819), first attributed to Lord Byron. Polidori was instrumental in publishing the tale – and did so with a certain guile as part of a larger literary strategy. Yet he nevertheless fell victim to the duplicity of the publisher Henry Colburn. Polidori was consequently vilified by the Byron circle, which ultimately wrecked his career as a writer. What emerges from this close attention to publication is that the text is unlikely to have been written in 1816 at the Villa Diodati, alongside Frankenstein, but two and a half years later. This therefore challenges its significance as a supposed portrait of Byron, and allows Byron’s own contribution to vampire fiction (‘A Fragment’) to be re-evaluated. The paper also examines the pieces published alongside ‘The Vampyre’ on its first appearance, suggesting the likely authors of these supplementary texts.","PeriodicalId":42939,"journal":{"name":"Romanticism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polidori’s ‘The Vampyre’: Composition, Publication, Deception\",\"authors\":\"Nick Groom\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/rom.2022.0536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents a detailed new analysis of the conception, composition, publication, and immediate reception of John William Polidori’s influential story, ‘The Vampyre’ (1819), first attributed to Lord Byron. Polidori was instrumental in publishing the tale – and did so with a certain guile as part of a larger literary strategy. Yet he nevertheless fell victim to the duplicity of the publisher Henry Colburn. Polidori was consequently vilified by the Byron circle, which ultimately wrecked his career as a writer. What emerges from this close attention to publication is that the text is unlikely to have been written in 1816 at the Villa Diodati, alongside Frankenstein, but two and a half years later. This therefore challenges its significance as a supposed portrait of Byron, and allows Byron’s own contribution to vampire fiction (‘A Fragment’) to be re-evaluated. The paper also examines the pieces published alongside ‘The Vampyre’ on its first appearance, suggesting the likely authors of these supplementary texts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanticism\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanticism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/rom.2022.0536\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/rom.2022.0536","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文对约翰·威廉·波利多里(John William Polidori)的影响深远的故事《吸血鬼》(the Vampyre,1819)的概念、构成、出版和直接接受进行了详细的新分析,该故事最初被认为是拜伦勋爵的作品。波利多里在出版这个故事中发挥了重要作用——作为更大的文学策略的一部分,他这样做带有一定的狡诈。然而,他却成了出版商亨利·科尔伯恩口是心非的牺牲品。波利多里因此受到拜伦圈子的诽谤,这最终毁掉了他的作家生涯。这种对出版的密切关注表明,这本书不太可能写于1816年,与弗兰肯斯坦一起在迪奥达蒂别墅,而是两年半后。因此,这挑战了它作为拜伦肖像的意义,并使拜伦自己对吸血鬼小说的贡献(《碎片》)得以重新评估。这篇论文还考察了《吸血鬼》首次亮相时与之一起发表的文章,提出了这些补充文本的可能作者。
This article presents a detailed new analysis of the conception, composition, publication, and immediate reception of John William Polidori’s influential story, ‘The Vampyre’ (1819), first attributed to Lord Byron. Polidori was instrumental in publishing the tale – and did so with a certain guile as part of a larger literary strategy. Yet he nevertheless fell victim to the duplicity of the publisher Henry Colburn. Polidori was consequently vilified by the Byron circle, which ultimately wrecked his career as a writer. What emerges from this close attention to publication is that the text is unlikely to have been written in 1816 at the Villa Diodati, alongside Frankenstein, but two and a half years later. This therefore challenges its significance as a supposed portrait of Byron, and allows Byron’s own contribution to vampire fiction (‘A Fragment’) to be re-evaluated. The paper also examines the pieces published alongside ‘The Vampyre’ on its first appearance, suggesting the likely authors of these supplementary texts.
期刊介绍:
The most distinguished scholarly journal of its kind edited and published in Britain, Romanticism offers a forum for the flourishing diversity of Romantic studies today. Focusing on the period 1750-1850, it publishes critical, historical, textual and bibliographical essays prepared to the highest scholarly standards, reflecting the full range of current methodological and theoretical debate. With an extensive reviews section, Romanticism constitutes a vital international arena for scholarly debate in this liveliest field of literary studies.