History Of Literary Studies Research Articles

The Man of Letters: Professor Barrett Wendell and the Style of White Supremacy

Abstract: The role of racism in the history of literary studies is broadly recognized; this article, however, turns from established emphases on exclusionary canons and race science to focus instead on style. Taking up the case of Harvard professor Barrett Wendell, whose influence in the fields of composition pedagogy and US literary history has been far-reaching, it examines his mannered ways of reading and teaching as a "man of letters," which lean into tacit expression, invocations of "common sense," and often-jocular forms of insincerity. Explaining how Wendell makes reading a site for affirming shared assumptions and mutual belonging, the article argues that he celebrates literary study as a means of experiencing a common humanity that is inclusive, diverse, and entirely white. Highlighting Wendell's opposition to the liberal racism dominant at his institution, it shows how he expresses his own contrarian illiberal racism by playing the troll.

Von der formalen Soziologie zur formalen Literatursoziologie: Georg Lukács

Abstract The paper reconstructs a crucial moment in the history of literary studies: the transference of formal sociology, as developed by Georg Simmel around 1900, into literary studies by his pupil, the young Georg Lukács. First, formal sociology will be explained in order to outline the ways in which Lukács adapts it. Then the formal method Lukács developed will be illustrated using the drama as an example. Finally, the paper will analyze Caroline Levine’s highly acclaimed study Forms (2015) in the context of the history of the formal method outlined, and briefly discuss the impasse in which this method currently finds itself.

„Ein Unbekanntes ist nur der Geschmack“. Zu Levin Ludwig Schückings literatursoziologischem Ansatz

Abstract The article reconstructs Levin Ludwig Schücking’s History of Taste as a method of writing literary history. Moreover, it lays out, for the first time, the cultural and literary-political dimensions of his approach by considering the context of the history of literary studies comprehensively. The article demonstrates how Schücking refers to sociology in a twofold manner: as a way of scholarly thinking that is related to certain methodological techniques, and as a way to overcome the “crisis of modernity” manifested in the rift between authors and readers in literary life.

Неопубликованная диссертация Леонида Долгополова о поэмах Блока «Возмездие» и «Двенадцать»

Russian Modernism scholar Leonid Konstantinovich Dolgolopov (1928 –1995), known for his studies on Alexander Blok and Andrei Bely, completed his PhD thesis on Blok’s narrative poems “Retribution” and “The Twelve” in 1960, received his degree in 1962, but never published the text (now in the author’s possession). Its major parts were published as papers, its principal propositions and conclusions were developed in Dolgopolov’s later research works, but the thesis was never printed as a whole, and, from the author’s point of view, is worth being published as a valuable source for history of literary studies on Russian Symbolism as well as an original work useful and readable even now. The article presents Dolgopolov’s unpublished PhD thesis. Chapter One deals with “Retribution” and presents a comprehensive study of the poem’s plan, plot, and literary history, its genre peculiarities and historical scenes. Chapter Two analyzes evolution of Blok’s political views during the First World War and the Russian Revolution of 1917 and also its reflection in Blok’s lyric poems of this period. Chapter Three is the first of Dolgopolov’s numerous studies on “The Twelve”, the work he considered to be Blok’s highest literary achievement. Dolgopolov analyzed the poem’s ideas and images (especially Jesus Christ), its formal and rythmic novelty, its place among other contempopary poetical works on Russian revolution.

Erken Dönem Amerikan Edebiyatında Savaşlar ve Savaş Karşıtı Söylemler

Ana akım eleştiri çalışmalarında; savaş, her ne kadar insanın insana karşı yıkıcı şiddeti olarak tanımlansa da, özellikle yirminci yüzyılın son çeyreğinden itibaren yaygınlaşan eko-eleştirel çalışmalarda her türlü canlı ya da cansız –doğa, su, hayvanlar, ormanlar, kentler, hava- eşyaya karşı yıkıcılığı bünyesine alır. Tarihin başlangıcından itibaren insanın şiddet içeren her türlü eylemi kitlesel boyutta “düşmana” karşı olmuştur. Bunlar, savaş adı altında devletlerin ana politikasını belirleyerek tarih biliminin tüm alt dallarının da en önemli gündemlerindendir. Amerikan tarihi ve Amerikan edebiyat tarihi incelemeleri de, bu noktada, savaşların genel etkisine vurgu yapmadan yapılamaz. Edebiyat tarihi incelemelerinde, savaşların irdelenmesi, ülkenin toplumsal, siyasi ve iktisadi politikalarını anlamanın yanında, topyekûn kültürel ve ideolojik zihniyetinin de anlaşılmasında kilit rol oynar. Bu yönüyle, bu makalede, (1) erken dönem Amerikan edebiyat tarihinde savaşların yeri ve bu savaşların art alanında yatan ideolojik amaçlar mercek altına alınması, (2) savaş olgusunun Amerikan edebiyat tarihinde nasıl içkin hale geldiği araştırılması ve (3) Amerikan edebiyatı geleneğinde savaşlara karşı gelişen muhalif damarın kapsamı ve etkinliğinin tartışılması hedeflenmiştir. Bu hedefler doğrultusunda, çeşitli ana akım eserler betimsel analiz yoluyla irdelenmiştir. Makalenin nihai amacı ise, edebiyat tarihlerine, Amerikan edebiyatı özelinde, savaşların nasıl damga vurduğunu ortaya çıkararak, Türkçe alan yazına ve savaş-edebiyat ilişkisinde ileri çalışmalara katkıda bulunmaktır.

From Literature to Metadata

From Literature to Metadata Matt Erlin This is not the first time that questions about the "great unread" have been raised with regard to eighteenth-century German studies. In the 1960s and early 1970s a variety of monographs sought to look beyond the canon to consider the entire range of imaginative fiction available to eighteenth-century readers. Thanks to the efforts of such scholars as Marion Beaujean, Marianne Spiegel, Eva D. Becker, Albert Ward, and Rudolf Schenda, to name just a few, we know more about the broader literary landscape of the period than one might assume, not only with regard to its general topography but also the composition of the soil.1 None of the authors of these studies had access to electronic corpora, but they still managed to evaluate an impressively wide array of works. In Der Trivialroman in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts (1964) for example, Marion Beaujean includes no less than 46 novels by 27 authors. To be sure, this number represents only a small fraction of the total novels published in Germany in the eighteenth century. Marianne Spiegel includes a list of 1,287 titles (including translations) published between 1700 and 1770 as an appendix to her monograph of 1967, Der Roman und sein Publikum im früheren 18. Jahrhundert 1700–1767. Ten years later, Michael Hadley published his Romanverzeichnis: Bibliographie der zwischen 1750–1800 erschienenen Erstausgaben, which includes publication data for more than 5,000 novels. There is, however, little reason to doubt the validity of Beaujean's interpretations, which aim to classify (sub)genres and trace their evolution, inasmuch as they are based on plausible sampling techniques and corroborated by para- and extratextual evidence. What are the lessons to be learned from these earlier examples of a more comprehensive approach to literary history? The first and most obvious is simply that these efforts exist. The point has already been made in a variety of contexts, but it bears repeating: synoptic, as well as empirical and quantitative analysis, have a long history in literary studies, and whatever transformations are now occurring in the wake of increased access to digital corpora and the tools of data science, they constitute a recalibration rather than a rupture. A second lesson is that the most interesting of these earlier studies adopt a mixed-methods approach, in the sense of combining qualitative and quantitative analysis as well as analysis of textual, paratextual, and extratextual materials. Dozens of scholars have explained why the alleged opposition between close and distant reading is an unhelpful one, and there is no need to [End Page 189] reiterate those arguments in this context. Less attention has been paid to the specific history and potential of the mixed-methods paradigm that "emerged as a 'distinct methodological field' at the beginning of the 21st century" in the social and behavioral sciences.2 The value of mixed-methods approaches, as Berenike Hermann has argued, is that they acknowledge a basic difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis, as well the strengths and weaknesses of each, and then attempt to combine them "in a way that achieves complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses."3 Some of the studies from the 1960s and 1970s adopt an exclusively qualitative approach, albeit one, it should be noted, that is nonetheless best understood as a form of distant reading focused on broad pattern recognition. But these are arguably the least enduring. Eva Becker, for example, presents a plausible typology of the novel around 1780, and her claims regarding "Die Hauptfiguren und ihr Weltbild" (The major characters and their worldview), "Die Umwelt der Figuren," (the characters' environment) und "Die Form der Romane" (the form of novels) seem equally persuasive. The larger stakes and implications of her classificatory efforts, however, remain unclear. Albert Ward, on the other hand, combines literary interpretations (e.g., on the indebtedness of Sophiens Reise von Memel nach Sachsen to earlier devotional literature) with quantitative data gleaned from book fair catalogues and other sources. The result is a range of insightful claims about the social and book-historical contexts out of which the modern German novel emerged in the eighteenth century. The broader literary landscape of the eighteenth...

The Founding Attempts of the Literary Historian. Solitudes, Singularities, Exemplarities

The present study reviews D. Popovici’s founding attempts in the field of literary history. It pursues his activity along four axes: critical editions of modern Romanian authors, studies in literary history, university lectures and “Studii literare” [Literary Studies], the scientific journal he founded as a professor of Cluj University. Both original and modern in his theoretic, methodologic as well as academic options, Popovici is a founder of institutions and initiator of a research school. His scientific projects are singular in their scope. Yet his critic posterity destines him to an unwarranted “singularity”. Our reflection focuses upon the exemplary elements in the scholar’s destiny.

Modernism: Evolution of an Idea by Sean Latham and Gayle Rogers, Modernism’s Print Cultures by Faye Hamill and Mark Hussey, Modernism, Science, and Technology by Mark S. Morrison

Modernism: Evolution of an Idea by Sean Latham and Gayle Rogers, Modernism’s Print Cultures by Faye Hamill and Mark Hussey, Modernism, Science, and Technology by Mark S. Morrison

Romantic Medievalism from a New Comparative Perspective

From certain point of view a desperate defense of an aesthetic doctrine of classicism, undertaken by Jan Śniadecki, a Polish mathematician and astronomer of the eighteenth century, resembles the E. R. Curtius’ thesis on “Latinism” as a universal factor integrating European culture; it may be stated that post-Stanislavian classical writers in Poland were driven by the same “concern for the preservation of Western culture” which motivated Ernst Robert Curtius in the times of the Third Reich and after its collapse. But the noble-minded intentions were in both cases grounded on similarly distorted perspective, which ensued from a mistificatory attitude towards a non-Latin heritage of the European culture. The range of that mystification or delusion has been fully revealed by findings made by modern so-called new comparative mythology/philology. Another aspect of the problem is an uniform model of the Middle Ages, partially correlated with the Enlightenment-based stereotype of “the dark Middle Ages”, which despite of its anachronism existed in literary studies for a surprisingly long period of time. Although the Romantic Movement of 18th – 19th centuries has been quite correctly acknowledged as an anti-Latinistic upheaval, its real connections with certain traditions of Middle Ages still remain not properly understood. Some concepts concerning Macpherson’s The Works of ossian, put forward by modern ethnology, may yield clues to the research on the question. As suggested by Joseph Falaky Nagy, Macpherson’s literary undertaking may by looked into as a parallel to Acallam na Senórach compiled in Ireland between 11th and 13th centuries: in both cases to respond to threats to the Gaelic culture there arose a literary monument and compendium of the commendable past with the core based on the Fenian heroic tradition that was the common legacy for the Irish and Highlanders. Taking into consideration some other evidence, it can be ascertained that Celtic and Germanic revival initiated in the second half of 18th century was not only one of the most important impulses for the Romantic Movement, but it was also, in a sense, an actual continuation of the efforts of mediaeval writers and compilers (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Snorri Sturluson, Saxo Grammaticus, anonymous compilers of Lebor gabála Érenn and Acallam, Wincenty Kadłubek), who would successfully combine Latin, i.e. classical, and ecclesiastical erudition with a desire to preserve and adapt in a creative way their own “pagan” and “barbarian” legacy. A special case of this (pre)Romantic revival concerns Slavic cultures, in particular the Polish one. Lack of source data on the oldest historical and cultural tradition of Slavic languages, especially in the Western region, and no record about Slavic tradition in highbrow literary culture induced two solutions: the first one was a production of philological forgeries (like Rukopis královédvorský and Rukopis zelenohorský), the second one was an attempt to someway reconstruct that lost heritage. Works of three Romantic historians, W. Surowiecki, W. A. Maciejowski, F. H. Lewestam, shows the method. Seemingly contradicting theories they put forward share common ground in aspects which are related to the characteristics of the first Slavic societies: a sense of being native inhabitants, pacifism, rich natural resources based on highly-effective agriculture, dynamic demography, a flattened social hierarchy and physical prowess. The fact of even greater importance is that the image of that kind has the mythological core, the circumstance which remains hitherto unnoticed. Polish historians not only tended to identify historical ancient Slavs with mythical Scandinavian Vanir (regarding it obvious), but also managed to recall the great Indo-European theme of ”founding conflict” (in Dumézilian terms), despite whole that mythological model being far beyond the horizon of knowledge at that time. Despite all anachronisms, lack of knowledge and instrumental involvement in aesthetic, political or religious ideology, Romanticism really started the restitution of the cultural legacy of the Middle Ages, also in domain of linguistic and philological research. The consequences of that fact should be taken into account in literary history studies.

Criticism in the History of the Modern Humanities: The Case of Literary Studies in the Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Netherlands

Critical thinking and delivering criticism of cultural products, practices, and events are traditionally considered a distinctive asset of humanities research and education. Today, the notion of critical thinking is still highly prevalent in humanities’ self-description. At the same time, the question of whether criticism should have an intrinsic role within humanities practice remains highly disputed, especially within disciplines such as literary studies and art history. This article traces the development of the debate surrounding criticism and scholarship in order to historically contextualize the contemporary discussion on the presumed critical task of the humanities scholar. It focuses on the history of literary studies in the Netherlands in order to investigate the specific ways literary scholars in the past have articulated and shaped criticism through their academic practice. Two case studies are analyzed in depth: the practice of W. J. A. Jonckbloet (1817–85) in the formation period at the end of the nineteenth century, and the practice of N. A. Donkersloot (1902–65) in the first half of the twentieth century. The analysis shows the profound fluidity of the term criticism and sheds light on the constant negotiation of the boundaries of scientific objectivity (when critical judgment is understood in terms of textual editing or as part of the quest for aesthetic laws) and artistic subjectivity (when critical judgment is understood in terms of artistic interpretation and evaluation of the object of study).

The Debate with Method in the History of Literary Studies

Abstract Drawing on a number of histories of literary studies from the United States, Britain, and France, this article reexamines the debates on the institutional self-definition of the subject. The ideals associated with research and scholarship, it is argued (following an analysis proposed by Hans Blumenberg), have their historical origin in the concept of method introduced by Descartes, and subsequently central to the natural and the social sciences. This ideal is here argued to represent an unacknowledged line of continuity between the philologists and historical scholars with whom academic literary studies began, the New Critics, and contemporary theoretical modes of literary studies. This article points to the dissidence to this model which appears in each of the national traditions of literary studies. This dissidence, it is argued, has its foundation and its legitimation in the distinction between the subject of reading (and criticism) and the subject of method. While this distinction was made as an objection to the research model, it could not have been articulated prior to the establishment of literary studies as a field of academic research; in this sense, it can be said to be the question that the field itself has posed, and ought to be integrated into its self-understanding.

Call for Papers and Panels:The Making of the Humanities VI: University of Oxford, Somerville CollegeSeptember 28–30, 2017

Previous articleNext article FreeNews of the ProfessionCall for Papers and Panels:The Making of the Humanities VI: University of Oxford, Somerville CollegeSeptember 28–30, 2017PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe Making of the Humanities conferences are organized by the Society for the History of the Humanities and bring together scholars and historians interested in the history of a wide variety of disciplines, including archaeology, art history, historiography, linguistics, literary studies, media studies, musicology, and philology, tracing these fields from their earliest developments to the modern day.We welcome panels and papers on any period or region. We are especially interested in work that transcends the history of specific humanities disciplines by comparing scholarly practices across disciplines and civilizations.Please note that the Making of the Humanities conferences are not concerned with the history of art, the history of music, the history of literature, and so on, but instead with the history of art history, the history of musicology, the history of literary studies, and so on.Keynote SpeakersElisabeth Décultot, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg: “From an Antiquarian to an Historical Approach? The Birth of Art History in the 18th Century”Shamil Jeppie, University of Cape Town: “Styles of Writing History in Timbuktu and the Sahara/Sahel”Peter Mandler, University of Cambridge: “The Rise (and Fall?) of the Humanities”Abstract SubmissionsAbstracts of single papers (30 minutes including discussion) should contain the name of the speaker, full contact address (including email address), the title, and a summary of the paper of no more than 250 words. For more information about submitting abstracts, see http://www.historyofhumanities.org/. Deadline for abstracts: April 15, 2017 Notification of acceptance: June 2017Panel SubmissionsPanels last 1.5 to 2 hours and can consist of 3–4 papers and possibly a commentary on a coherent theme including discussion. Panel proposals should contain respectively the name of the chair, the names of the speakers and commentator, full contact addresses (including email addresses), the title of the panel, a short (150 words) description of the panel’s content, and for each paper an abstract of no more than 250 words. For more information about submitting panels, see http://www.historyofhumanities.org/. Deadline for panel proposals: April 15, 2017 Notification of acceptance: June 2017 Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by History of Humanities Volume 2, Number 1Spring 2017 Sponsored by the Society for the History of the Humanities Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/690595 © 2017 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Romantic medievalism from a new comparative perspective

From certain point of view a desperate defense of an aesthetic doctrine of classicism, undertaken by Jan Śniadecki, a Polish mathematician and astronomer of the eighteenth century, resembles the E. R. Curtius’ thesis on “Latinism” as a universal factor integrating European culture; it may be stated that post-Stanislavian classical writers in Poland were driven by the same “concern for the preservation of Western culture” which motivated Ernst Robert Curtius in the times of the Third Reich and after its collapse. But the noble-minded intentions were in both cases grounded on similarly distorted perspective, which ensued from a mistificatory attitude towards a non-Latin heritage of the European culture. The range of that mystification or delusion has been fully revealed by findings made by modern so-called new comparative mythology/philology. Another aspect of the problem is an uniform model of the Middle Ages, partially correlated with the Enlightenment-based stereotype of “the dark Middle Ages”, which despite of its anachronism existed in literary studies for a surprisingly long period of time. Although the Romantic Movement of 18th – 19th centuries has been quite correctly acknowledged as an anti-Latinistic upheaval, its real connections with certain traditions of Middle Ages still remain not properly understood. Some concepts concerning Macpherson’s The Works of ossian, put forward by modern ethnology, may yield clues to the research on the question. As suggested by Joseph Falaky Nagy, Macpherson’s literary undertaking may by looked into as a parallel to Acallam na Senórach compiled in Ireland between 11th and 13th centuries: in both cases to respond to threats to the Gaelic culture there arose a literary monument and compendium of the commendable past with the core based on the Fenian heroic tradition that was the common legacy for the Irish and Highlanders. Taking into consideration some other evidence, it can be ascertained that Celtic and Germanic revival initiated in the second half of 18th century was not only one of the most important impulses for the Romantic Movement, but it was also, in a sense, an actual continuation of the efforts of mediaeval writers and compilers (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Snorri Sturluson, Saxo Grammaticus, anonymous compilers of Lebor gabála Érenn and Acallam, Wincenty Kadłubek), who would successfully combine Latin, i.e. classical, and ecclesiastical erudition with a desire to preserve and adapt in a creative way their own “pagan” and “barbarian” legacy. A special case of this (pre)Romantic revival concerns Slavic cultures, in particular the Polish one. Lack of source data on the oldest historical and cultural tradition of Slavic languages, especially in the Western region, and no record about Slavic tradition in highbrow literary culture induced two solutions: the first one was a production of philological forgeries (like Rukopis královédvorský and Rukopis zelenohorský), the second one was an attempt to someway reconstruct that lost heritage. Works of three Romantic historians, W. Surowiecki, W. A. Maciejowski, F. H. Lewestam, shows the method. Seemingly contradicting theories they put forward share common ground in aspects which are related to the characteristics of the first Slavic societies: a sense of being native inhabitants, pacifism, rich natural resources based on highly-effective agriculture, dynamic demography, a flattened social hierarchy and physical prowess. The fact of even greater importance is that the image of that kind has the mythological core, the circumstance which remains hitherto unnoticed. Polish historians not only tended to identify historical ancient Slavs with mythical Scandinavian Vanir (regarding it obvious), but also managed to recall the great Indo-European theme of ”founding conflict” (in Dumézilian terms), despite whole that mythological model being far beyond the horizon of knowledge at that time. Despite all anachronisms, lack of knowledge and instrumental involvement in aesthetic, political or religious ideology, Romanticism really started the restitution of the cultural legacy of the Middle Ages, also in domain of linguistic and philological research. The consequences of that fact should be taken into account in literary history studies.

Digital Humanities and the History of Literary Studies

Digital Humanities and the History of Literary Studies

Epochs, Elephants, and Parts: On the Concept of History in Literary Studies

This review essay takes Kenneth Warren’s What Was African American Literature? as an opportunity to reflect on the theory of history operative in literary studies. I suggest that Warren employs the idea that history is defined by shifting epochal units determined by legal structures. Building on the recent work of critical theorist Gabriel Rockhill, I propose that we should instead understand all histories as partial histories of the various strata that make up the present. Such a conception of history can more adequately handle the complexity of the relations between literature, race, and class today. The essay thus proposes that we can resituate Warren’s book alongside the strong responses it has elicited as a series of partial histories that can profitably speak to each other. In this way I hope to show the valuable insights that both Warren and his critics provide, while reframing the debate around the background question of the concept of history in literary studies.

Litteraturvetenskapen och det kosmopolitiska begäret

Literary Studies and Cosmopolitan Desire
 With a focus on Swedish and English translations of the Brazilian war narrative Os sertões (1902) by Euclides da Cunha, this essay begins by exploring the conditions of possibility for the transnational circulation of this Brazilian national classic as ”world literature”. A cosmopolitan, North Atlantic literary network – in which the Austrian writer Stefan Zweig was an influential figure (even posthumously) – is shown to have been instrumental in drawing the Swedish translator Thomas Warburton’s attention to Os sertões in the 1940s. Having traced the outlines of this translation history, the essay provides a theoretical excursus on the dynamic of cosmopolitan and vernacular tendencies in literary history and in the history of literary studies, especially the Swedish discipline of litteraturvetenskap. The underlying argument is that literary studies in Sweden has been shaped by a combination of methodological nationalism (with regard to primary sources) and methodological eurocentrism (in terms of its historical and theoretical horizon). The particular cosmopolitanism of literary studies in Sweden has in this way been expressive of Sweden’s position in a specific configuration of geopolitical power relations – a configuration that is currently undergoing significant changes and could be seen to motivate Dipesh Chakrabarty’s call to ”provincialize Europe”. In closing, it is therefore claimed that the case of Os sertões and its Swedish translation can be read in two ways: as an affirmation of a twentieth-century North Atlantic hegemony (and its corresponding form of cosmopolitanism) but also, if we close read the text itself, as a challenge to that very hegemony, potentially enabling a redistribution of the cosmopolitan desire of literary criticism.

‘Dim-conceived glories of the brain’: On Ambiguity in Literature and Science

This article explores theoretical issues raised by empirical aesthetics and cognitive literary theory – new fields which attempt to bridge the divide between the humanities and the sciences. It arises from ‘Poetry Beyond Text: Vision, Text and Cognition’, a research project funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. The discussion focuses on the concept of ambiguity, which has a rich history in literary studies and has recently attracted attention in neurological and cognitive approaches to literature and art. A shift is proposed from a conception of ambiguity in terms of a relatively passive process of aesthesis to one in which ambiguity plays a role in an active, generative process of poesis. Tracing the influence of ideas of aesthetic autonomy on the historical polarization of science and art, the article draws attention to the role of Romantic aesthetics and the ideologies of modernism in constructing a binary between ambiguous, subjective literary language and rational, objective scientific analysis. It considers how such ideas play out in the literary theory of William Empson and I. A. Richards, the empirical aesthetics of Samir Zeki and Reuven Tsur's cognitive literary theory. Keats's famous idea of ‘negative capability’ is deployed, in combination with Andrew Bowie's distinction between analytic and hermeneutic conceptions of truth, to lead into a discussion of ‘cognitive blending’, conceived by Mark Turner and Gilles Fauconnier as an evolutionary adaptation in the human brain allowing the conceptual integration of huge amounts of information. This theory supports a positive valorization of ambiguity as integral to creative thought in both science and art.

Pleasure, Happiness and Romanticism: A Critical Survey

This survey article offers a brief history of literary studies of pleasure, and describes the intellectual context in which these appeared in the 1980s and 90s, when consumption was a major theme in the humanities and social sciences. More recently, a turn to ‘happiness’ in economics and neuroscience invites a new attention to ideas of positive affect in texts of the Romantic period. Other shifts, including the return to prominence of the aesthetic, and a turn away from certain aspects of ideology critique and deconstruction, have also encouraged a new look at pleasure in Romanticism, especially in the writing of Wordsworth. It details some recent publications on this theme, and points to potential avenues for future research.

Ralph Cohen, New Literary History , and Literary Studies in China

n the history of literary studies, as well as in the humanities more generally, there are two sorts of people who influence and push forward the development of literary studies in a particular cultural context: one by means of insightful theoretical thinking, the other by means of organizational ability. I should mention in particular two eminent American literary scholars who have influenced not only my own career as a Chinese scholar of literature, but also literary stud- ies in China more broadly. These two people both have close relations with the prestigious journal New Literary History. Fredric Jameson, one of the advisory editors of the journal, not only influenced my studies on postmodernism in the Chinese context but also helped reroute China's postmodern studies and cultural studies in the 1980s and 1990s with his monumental work on postmodernism. 1 Ralph Cohen, founder of the journal and editor during the past forty years, not only helped reori- ent my own academic career, but more importantly, helped reorient the study of literary theory and comparative literature in China during the last ten years, thanks to the impact of New Literary History as well as the volume he edited, The Future of Literary Theory. About three years ago, when I was attending the fourth Sino-American Symposium on Comparative Literature held at Duke University in 2006, I told Jameson of my desire to see Ralph Cohen. Jameson immediately expressed his gratitude for the considerable help Cohen had given him in the early part of his career. I am sure that many of today's prominent literary scholars are likewise indebted to Cohen. But in this essay, I will first reflect on Cohen's help to me and his unique contribution to literary studies in China before dealing with the remarkable role played by New Literary History.

England in 1819: The Politics of Literary Culture and the Case of Romantic Historicism

year 1819 was the annus mirabilis for many British Romantic writers, and the annus terribilis for demonstrators protesting the state of parliamentary representation. In 1819 Keats wrote what many consider his greatest poetry. This was the year of Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, The Cenci, and Ode to the West Wind. Wordsworth published his most widely reviewed work, Peter Bell, and the craze for Walter Scott's historical novels reached its zenith. Many of these writings explicitly engaged with the politics of 1819, in particular the great movement for reform that came to a head that August with an unprovoked attack on unarmed men, women, and children in St Peter's Field, Manchester, a massacre that journalists dubbed Peterloo. But the year of Peterloo in British is notable for more than just the volume, value, and topicality of its literature. Writing from 1819, the author argues, was acutely aware not only of its place in history, but also of its place as - a realization of a literary spirit of the age that resonates strongly with the current return to history in literary studies. Chandler explores the ties between Romantic and contemporary historicism, such the shared tendency to seize a single dated event both important on its own and a case testing general principles. To animate these issues, Chandler offers a series of cases of built around key texts from 1819. Like the famous sonnet by Shelley from which it takes its name, this book simultaneously creates and critiques its own place in history. It sets out to be not only a crucial study of Romanticism, but also a major contribution to an understanding of historicism.