...
首页> 外文期刊>Review of English Studies, The >‘Romance’ and the Novel in Restoration England
【24h】

‘Romance’ and the Novel in Restoration England

机译:《浪漫》与英国还原小说

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This essay scrutinizes seventeenth-century uses of the word ‘Romance’, together with the actual texts designated by that term and the specific emotions, identifications, and binding passions that readers associate with it. I find that it coexisted with ‘Novel’ in a promising state of flux: both keywords denoted fiction-in-general, neither adhered to a unified referent. Borrowing from an anecdote in Pepys, I define the relation of ‘Romance’ and ‘Novel’ as neither synonymous nor opposite, but a kind of sibling rivalry or monstrous twinship. The romanceovel dichotomy—essential foundation for later theories of the ‘rise’ of the latter—turns out to be much less important than the distinction between Old Romance (giants, dragons, and enchanted castles) and New Romance (bound by historical probability). Consequently, prevailing generalizations about the exclusive features of ‘the novel’, defined as a distinct genre in opposition to romance and assumed to have replaced it, should be rethought. Whichever its label, the core concern of fiction is the precarious reconciliation of the Real and the Wonderful.
机译:本文详细研究了“浪漫”一词在17世纪的用法,以及该词所指定的实际文字以及与之相关的特定情感,认同和约束性情感。我发现它与“小说”以一种有希望的变化状态共存:两个关键字都表示为小说,而两个关键字都没有遵循统一的参照标准。从佩皮斯(Pepys)的轶事中借来的东西,我将“浪漫”和“小说”的关系定义为既不是同义的也不是相反的,而是同级的竞争或可怕的孪生关系。浪漫主义/新颖的二分法是后者的“崛起”后来理论的基本基础,事实证明,这与旧浪漫史(巨人,龙和附魔的城堡)和新浪漫史(受历史概率的约束)之间的区别远没有那么重要。 )。因此,应该重新考虑关于“小说”的排他性特征的普遍概括,“小说”被定义为一种与浪漫主义相对立的独特流派,并被认为已经取代了浪漫主义。不论小说的标签是什么,小说的核心关注点都是现实与奇妙事物之间的car和。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号