The author is responsible for the accuracy of all quotations, titles, names, and dates. Font and sizes as close as possible to the style of the previous issue of PLCS should be used throughout the text. All of the information must be in the same language e. The paper used in this book meets their minimum requirement for recycled paper. Is it not true that a reasonable consensus exists regarding 2 the impasses of the genre of literary history? The goal of this issue, therefore, is to con- tribute to this contemporary discussion.
Literary Histones in Portuguese also aims to engage in dialogue with the series of literary histories published by Harvard 4 University Press since the release of A Neio History of French Literature in Thus, to produce a literary history implies establishing an intertextual dialogue with the literary history genre itself. Accordingly, Liter- ary Histories in Portuguese intends to problematize both the normative concept of literature as well as the act of writing literary history. In its monographic sec- tion, the contributors have developed an array of new possibilities and focused on relevant case studies concerning this relevant topic.
Therefore, we should start by rendering clear the theoretical framework we are proposing. In particu- lar, the essays in the monographic section are committed to shedding light on a theoretical dimension in order to broaden the usually narrow understanding of the task of writing literary histories. This principle should allow for an active rereading and thus rewriting of key controversies of cultural history, as they should be associated with conceptual disputes over the defini- tion of literature. We propose that literature has to be studied from and within an axis of cultural, political, and economic relationships, characterizing a comparative as well as an interdis- ciplinary approach.
Literary history, in fact, should always be of a comparative nature — especially when it deals with only one national literary history. We should emphasize, within that horizon, relationships that are forma- tive of literatures in Portuguese, stressing their relative location in the world of Portuguese language. Instead of privileging the writing of the national literary history of Portugal, or of Brazil, or of Mozambique, or of Angola, and so forth and so on, we should privilege the study of the interrelations and crossings that constitute the lusophone predicament.
Therefore, we should attend closely to the Portuguese presence in Brazilian and Portuguese-speaking African litera- tures; the Brazilian presence in Portuguese and Portuguese-speaking African literatures; the growing and welcome influx of Portuguese-speaking African lit- eratures in Portugal and Brazil. Last but not least, we cannot forget an increas- ing wealth of literature produced by Portuguese-speaking immigrants, usually 7 in a foreign language, especially English.
In other words, our task is to produce an ever more complex portrait of liter- ary exchanges, including the need to acknowledge the plurality of conceptions 8 of literature itself. Another question relates to modes of appropriating diverse literary traditions developed within the universe of lusophone culture, stressing the associations of these forms with similar techniques of appropriation engendered in other cultural universes. Finally yet importantly, we should privilege the study of the emergence and consolidation of the literary system in Portuguese, a phenomenon that neces- sarily transcends national borders and engages several languages and national literatures.
Once more, this broadened perspective would allow for a much- needed reconsideration of key moments in the lusophone cultural history. The concern with the establishment of a literary history with an emphasis on a comparative approach does not mean neglect of the uniqueness of particular experiences. Rather, such an approach should allow, even through contrasting lenses, for the renewed clarification of that specificity. In the assem- bled essays, the question of national identity emerges repeatedly, and Brazilian 13 Literature is portrayed as the main character.
Precisely regarding this dilemma, Helena C. Helena C. On the one hand, there is the narrative character of every literary his- tory On the other, there is the association with a unique national space or — with a wider locus, engendered by a common language or by the constant and constitutive access to the same cultural and literary repertoire. Indeed, Literary Histories in Portuguese aims to provide a theoretical framework within which the narrative of the historical process of a given literature may be conceived under a new perspective.
As the subject is complex, we must move forward gradually, analyzing previ- ous examples of alternative literary histories. The term synthesizes the fragmentary organization of this new literary history. In tune with the criticism raised by Franchetti, such an organization purports to refuse national determination, while maintaining the geographic space of the nation as a nonassumed axis of the myriad entries that make up the volume.
Literature, however, selfless or not, never comes without borders. Not only, as Rousseau said, does language distinguish humans from animals, but 20 also, as he added, languages distinguish nations from one another. Therefore, against totality, a frequent discursive effect of normative concep- tions, the postmodern encyclopedia invests in the fragmentary, and incom- pleteness becomes an important value.
Likewise, the project of A Neu; History of German Literature sought to move away from the ghost of totality. The date each poem or work of literature bears is internal 23 to the work itself, the temporal center around which it crystallizes. The patron of this literary history could also be Erich Auerbach, especially in his thoughtful rejection of abstract concepts and theoretical, grandiloquent transhistorical overviews, which subtly he links to the structure of the legend as 24 opposed to the writing of history.
However, a decisive question remains to be discussed: how could one qualify a text as being literary, once regulatory concepts are rejected? If we radicalize the principle of contextualization, then how to rely on a concept of literature that paradoxically would remain identical to itself throughout history? In seeking to provide an answer, David Wellbery adopts a dual strategy. Actually, it is grounded upon a tautological movement that equates geo- graphical boundaries with a given language in order to create a fixed image of national identity, always identical to itself; therefore, it is immune to historical changes, although paradoxically rooted in a particular historical development.
Historical time is not a homogeneous medium that the historians can simply presuppose, but is itself in flux. Valdes and Kadir Djelal.
Prosa e poesia se misturam para desvendar as minúcias da melancolia. A sinestesia é ponto de partida para observar a rotina, o tédio, os sofrimentos. Segredos da melancolia portuguese edition. Gasoline texas. How the maya built their world energetics and ancient architecture. What distinguishes a master.
Therefore, the complex junction of Amerindian, European, and African lega- cies would have produced a radical heterogeneity with which traditional literary history would be unable to cope. The concept of literary history is then replaced by that of literary cultures —and, here, plurality is a key concern. Indeed, the creation of potential dialogues among variegated critical tradi- tions may be an alternative to the discipline of literary history. This comparison leads to a much more complex perspective on the history of the concept of literature itself. Actually, the act of going beyond literary history, in its traditional discursive practice, had already been outlined in another attempt, aimed at writing the his- tory of Spanish literature after the civil war.
The outstanding change stands out: Writing instead of Literature. This concept, omnipresent since its coinage by Roman Jakobson within the context of so-called Russian Formalism, has lost favor from the s onward, and remains valid today only as a synthesis of the sort of theoretical approach that ought to be avoided. The explanation may seem sophisti- cated, but the underlying reason is more traditional than the most traditional literary history!
Its literature was not inherited but invented In this case, it is as if the act of abandoning traditional literary history did not correspond to a sophisticated theoretical apparatus but rather to a hopelessly historical lack of historicity — in this predictable constellation, the redundancy 36 imposes itself. Yet every nation is made-up , it cannot be otherwise, unless we would indulge in an embarrassingly naive understanding of European cultural history as naturally superior just by being European. Indeed, this tautological reasoning belongs to a nineteenth-century mentality.
The third volume, El Brote de los Generos The Emergence of Literary Genres , shares this approach and reconstructs the process of differentiation of genres, the result of which is the clarification of what is conceptually meant by and, above all, socially received as literature in a given historical moment. Firstly, it is understood as a process. Finally, this perspective aims to reveal, in the emerging processes it studies, the constant elements, precisely in contrast to the diversity and the 42 variations.
It is our hope that Literary Histories in Portuguese will become a relevant reference in this contempo- rary debate. In the monographic section of this issue, Remo Ceserani, a leading scholar on literary theory, discusses the recent changes in the theoretical and practi- cal approaches to literary history, providing an indispensable overview of the problem. Carlos M. Isaac Lourido aims at contributing to the renovation of the discipline of liter- ary history through the development of a historiographical model grounded in systemic theories.
Jobst Welge focuses on the paradoxical relationship between particularity and synthesis in the practice of literary history, highlighting the central role of the modern novel for the contemporary epistemological situation faced by the genre of literary history.
The three subsequent permanent sections provide a wealth of perspectives and topics. We also would like to thank Jason Warshof for suggestions concerning the style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, , ix. Denis Hollier, ed. David Wellbery, ed. Greil Marcus and Werner Sollors, eds. See the Portuguese in the Americas Series, edited by Tagus Press, for a relevant overview of this literature. Joao Cezar de Castro Rocha, ed. Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press, , See ibid. Its explanations of past happenings are piecemeal, may be inconsistent with each other, and are admitted to be inadequate.
It precludes a vision of its subject. Francke Ver- lag, , Mario J. Valdes and Djelal Kadir, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , xvii. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, , ix. See, among many titles, the always-quoted collection of essays Nation and Narra- tion London: Routledge, , edited by Homi K. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, , 1. Bhabha, ed. London: Routledge, , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , 4.
Wlad Godzich and Nicholas Spadaccini, eds. Alejandra Laera, ed.
Ill: E! Some of the old approaches to writing literary history, such as the nineteenth-century examples of Geistesge- schicinte or Stilgeschichte, have gone out of fashion. Newer suggestions have come from the French historians gathered around the journal Armales, the German school of Rezeptionskritik, and the American discussions on the canon. Among the types of literary history that are widely practiced today are those focused on the evolu- tion of literary institutions, the development of a language, the history of ideas and ideologies, and the reconstruction of the biographical and sociological conditions underlying the production of a literary work.
Two types of approaches seem to stand out: those that center on the development of literary forms and those that trace the changes in literary themes over time. The real achievement would be to provide, at the same time, a history of literary forms and a history of literary themes. The last three decades have seen a sharp change in the cultural and philosophi- cal attitudes of many scholars, across many disciplines.
For some time at the beginning of this period, structuralist linguistics held sway, penetrating many other disciplines with its influence and generating distinctive approaches in sociology, psychology, anthropology, and even in literary criticism, where texts tended to be treated as linguistic structures separate from their historical con- texts. Now we have entered a new phase, in which structuralist linguistics has been replaced by psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics.
The change has even reached the subdiscipline of literary history, whether in reopening the discussion about the relationship between literature and history or in giv- ing encouragement to more analytic studies of the particular genre of narrative work constituted by literary histories, which had their greatest moment in the nineteenth century, an era of historiography and of novelistic narrative. Lending force to this change has been a widespread interest in narrativity, as attested by the interventions of a wide variety of thinkers and scholars, including the Amer- ican biologist Stephen Jay Gould.
The narrative mode comes naturally to us as a style for 1 organizing thoughts and ideas. Here too the signs of change are easy to discern. One question raised on several occasions in the twentieth century made a renewed appearance in the 2 title of a book published in Is Literary History Possible? The question itself is evidence of a certain skepticism, a skepticism that has found many different forms of expression and a wide variety of theoretical and philosophical justifica- tions on the many occasions throughout the twentieth century when the under- lying principles of literary history have been subjected to critical scrutiny.
It is nonetheless true that the very act of asking the question about the possibility of literary history invites and encourages us to search for a positive answer. Critical debate on this topic has revolved around two distinctions of a con- ceptual nature. The first is the distinction between documents and monuments, an ancient distinction that has recently regained currency in an ongoing debate among historians. Imported into the field of aesthetics especially the phenom- enological schools , it has provided the basis for a division between those works that present themselves as documents, that is, as testimonies for a certain his- torical reality, individual or social, and those works that present themselves as valuable in themselves.
It may stand in relation to anything in the past. It is not only a structure that may be analyzed descriptively. It is a totality of values that do not adhere to the structure but constitute its very nature. The values can be grasped only in an act of contemplation.
These values are created in a free act of the imagina- tion irreducible to limiting conditions in sources, traditions, biographical 6 and social circumstances. The other conceptual distinction is between individual and general or generic, or exemplary. Literary history also tends to see the particular only as a specimen, not as an individual entity; uniqueness falls outside its purview too.
Friedrich Schlegel had some harsh words to say on this score. The latter point of view also has its justification: of that there should be no doubt. One of the tasks of literary study is to abstract from the individual work in order to arrive at an overview of a more or less unified pe- riod of historical development. Moreover, it cannot be denied that a deeper understanding of an individual passage or an individual work is sometimes facilitated by this general knowledge, however problematic it may be. Yet we must not overlook the fact that every work of art possesses a certain monarchical strain, that — as Valery put the matter —simply by its very exis- 7 tence it would like to destroy all other works of art.
Around the key concepts that I have laid out here there raged, through the course of the twentieth century, a long and intense debate, which eventually resulted in the calling into question of the very legitimacy of literary history. I recall here as one of the most significant episodes in this resurgence —along with the book by David Perkins and the reader he edited on the subject —a 9 10 edition of special which added an already healthy Annales, to number of previous initiatives of a similar type such as those mounted by two journals, the American Neiu Literary History and the European Poetics, which pub- lished together in , in a sort of organized dialogue, two issues on the theme 11 of Writing Histories of Literature.
That the main organ of the prestigious French school of social history judged it necessary to dedicate an entire issue to this question was naturally of some importance. It would reconstruct the atmosphere of the era, investigate who was writing, and for what audience, as well as who was reading, and for what reason. It would have to examine what education writers received either in colleges or elsewhere and at the same time what education 14 their readers received.
And the choice is unsurprising, since these are the two schools of thought that are for various reasons closest to the method and theoretical presuppositions of French social 18 historiography. As emerges, indeed, from the essays collected in this issue of Annales, all dedicated —and this was deliberate — to aspects of French literature of the seventeenth century, the main themes of research are: the publishing and circulation of literary works, with an obvious reference point in the French tra- dition of the history of the book Lucien Febvre, Henri-Jean Martin, Francois Furet, Jacques Ozouf 19 ; the reception of literary work and profiles of the audi- ence these works were addressed to; the self-fashioning of writers and of their own social role as projected in their works.
Of course the full variety of critical and theoretical proposals that have been advanced inside this vast movement to rehistoricize literature is much broader than this. Jauss toward aesthetics, Wolfgang Iser toward problems of the imagi- 20 nary , a certain sentiment of discontent and frustration has grown among adherents of the school.
After so many years of theorizing, not one actual lit- erary history has been written along the lines set out by reception theory. The journal was founded in the s by Erich Kohler shortly before his early death , a scholar of Romance literature and a colleague of Jauss who collaborated with him on the grand literary historical project Grundriss der 21 romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters. The issue of the canon, in fact, has laid bare all of a sudden a very important aspect of any literary history — that is, the hierarchy of individual literary works which determines how much space each individual work deserves in a literary history.
At the same time, it has brought us face-to-face with the constant change, from one generation to the next, in our hierarchy of values and, with it, the possibility that each new generation will have to construct a literary history of its own. I turn now to two different questions. First, what exactly is literary history about, or what exactly is it writing the history of? What choices are literary historians making, and what purposes do they have in mind, when they decide to tell us about a particular series of events in which, according to them, literary history consists?
And second, how does one do literary history? What narrative tech- niques do literary historians have recourse to, or have at their disposal? There are two types of literary history that stand no chance of being reha- bilitated in our time. The first type is literary history as the history of a national consciousness or of the identifying traits whether cultural, linguistic, or even racial of a particular national com- munity.
This is the model that inspired the great literary historians of the nine- teenth century. Besides Francesco de Sanctis 25 —who probably wrote the single greatest work of this type in all of Europe —we should recall here the already mentioned Taine, along with Georg Gottfried Gervinus, Leslie Stephen, George 26 Brandes, Emile Legouis, Louis Cazamian , and many others. This type of lit- erary history rests on particular philosophical foundations. Particularly funda- mental is the idea that the nation should be conceived not only as an assemblage of political institutions but also as a set of common cultural norms; the idea that each nation has a particular Hegelian spirit or Geist, a particular national identity that can be isolated and reconstructed in telling the story of its past, and which found expression in all the various ways the nation had of representing itself, and especially through the representative modes of literature.
Underneath this particular tendency in literary history was an even broader conception, wide- spread in the nineteenth century, of a history of the spirit, Geistesgeschichte, which should be involved in recovering the successive stages of the development of civilization in the various European nation-states. And this is leaving aside the 27 contemporaneous debate on the difference between civilization and culture.
Another type of literary history, also very popular in the past but now out of fashion and surrounded by doubts and criticisms whenever it makes an ap- pearance, is literary history as the history of styles: not Geistesgeschichte, then, but Stilgeschichte. Examples include the periodic attempts to write histories of the neogothic, baroque, or neoclassical styles. In such cases the element in com- mon that allows one to generalize, which provides a solid foundation for the reconstruction of a period of history, is some stylistic trait, some recognizable formal characteristic such as openness and closure, horizontality and vertical- ly, torsion, spirals, and so on , often chosen by analogy with the practice of art historians.
This approach certainly has a notable past, and can be traced back to the example of Heinrich Wolfflin and other great art historians. It is 30 motivated by the idea that a literary form has life and a development in time. All the same, there are cogent reasons to doubt the theoretical coherence of this type of literary history, which hypothesizes a separate and autonomous life for 31 literary forms , and after projects like that of Arnold Hauser, who constructed 32 his own model that combined the history of styles with the history of societies , this type of literary history has rarely been attempted.
I will try to make a rapid survey of these types. First and foremost, there is the history of literary institutions, which focuses on all the various sorts of institutions that have assisted in the production and distribution of literary texts in different historical periods. This type of liter- ary history —not too far from that called for by Lucien Febvre — deals with the material supports for literary communication, from orality to literacy and from the manuscript to the book.
It is, then, a field of inquiry closely related to the history of the book. It further deals with places of encounter between writers and readers the medieval university, the chancellery of a medieval city-state or signoria, courts, academies, literary cafes, editorial boards for encyclopedias, publishing houses, journals. Finally, it deals with the coming together of groups, schools, and movements, traditional and avant- garde, and with the formulation of programs and the writing of manifestos.
This is a perfectly respectable way of constructing a literary history, and one that is readily connected to other aspects of social and cultural history. But its real subject matter is cultural institutions, which provided the backdrop and ren- dered possible the production, distribution, and consumption of literary works. Related to the history of cultural institutions is another type of history, which is similarly concerned with the very conditions of literary production and which is particularly vital to it: the history of languages themselves.
Carlo Dionisotti, for one, has argued picking up some important insights of Antonio Gramsci 34 that it is impossible to do Italian history —not only history but literary cultural and social history as well —without grappling with the question of the Italian language. The same can be said of many other nations.
Another type of literary history takes the circulation of literary works as its subject. This is a broad field and has generated a distinctive brand of literary so- ciology, which has occupied itself with publishing markets, the distribution of books, the reactions of readers, in sum with literature as practice and its various fortunes through history. A quantitative sociol- ogy of reading has been elaborated by the German scholar Rolf Engelsing and the French scholar Robert Escarpit.
The American Robert Darnton has comple- mented these elementary statistical studies with more intimate investigations, examining the internal effects on the mind and imagination of readers of the often exciting and emotional experience of reading a novel, from the eighteenth 37 century to today.
And a good number of scholars have studied the market for books in the modern era, reconstructing the consequences that the internal differentiation of the reading public has had on the production of volumes of various sorts e. And from here a whole series of other histories can be written of the subgenres of serial literature, such as detec- tive fiction, spy stories, and sci-fi.
The methodologies of German Rezeptionkritik and American reader-response criticism, although they are oriented toward the actual reading of texts, are not in their essence sociological approaches. Here the sociological methodology and language of Pierre Bourdieu have had great influence, both in France and outside of it. The problem with these various schools of literary sociology is that they have concentrated on individual aspects of literary communication e. There is another type of history, and that is the history of ideas or of ideolo- gies.
This has often been approximated, especially in France and Italy, and par- ticularly by Gramscians, to the history of intellectuals and their role in society. The history of ideas, it must be admitted, no doubt has a role to play in any more general social or cultural history. Its main interest is in movements within soci- ety, in the hegemonic or contested ideas within them, in the rise and fall of new ideas and projects, and in the role intellectuals and writers play in different soci- eties in the formation and diffusion of these ideas.
The problem of what role to attribute to intellectuals has arisen in various periods of history in many nation- states. Was their role granted to them or seized by them? It is a key aspect of Italian history, and may be similarly central in all those countries in which national unification came late and by unusual means, since in such places, in the absence of well-defined interests and in the presence of excessively weak political structures, a particularly central role was given to intellectuals in propping up those in power, intervening on behalf of the people, 40 or simply in radical contestation.
And yet the identification of intellectuals and literary figures, though it is not unjustified in the history of many nations, has ended too often in eliding the uniqueness of literature and in reducing literary history to the history of ideologies. Literary history has become the history of intellectuals and their role, of their explicit and implicit connections with the world of ideas, of movements, of the great trends. Yet another sort of literary history of considerable interest is that which fo- cuses on writers and their lives.
This is a type of history that has its own par- ticular problems, problems of legitimacy and of methodology. For example, is it really possible to reconstruct and interpret the course of a life, assembling its details into an orderly and meaningful narrative? What are the interpretive tools to which one can legitimately have recourse in doing so? What narrative choices should one make among the many that have been tried in this particu- lar literary genre?
Moreover, this sort of history raises delicate questions about the relationship between literature and biography, between social history and the history of individuals. On the other hand, nobody is inclined to deny absolutely either the inherent interest or the theoretical legiti- macy of the biography as history and narrative. An individual life may trace an arc that departs significantly from the arc traced by social structures, with their internal dynamics of organization, transformation, and stabilization. There are writers whose lives have straddled some great social transformation, and who lived half in one historical period and half in another.
Here again arises the problem, to which I made reference at the beginning of this essay, of the re- lationship between the individual and the general. To emphasize the particu- lar circumstances of individual lives and works can confer a certain thickness and authenticity to a literary history, but it risks shattering any more general de- sign, thus reducing history to a series of portraits or busts of individual writers.
The types of literary history that I have discussed so far tend to consider the literary work as a document, not a monument, interest themselves more in con- texts than in texts themselves, and take their points of departure from individual elements of the historical context: institutions, language, ideas, intellectuals, and so on. As representative examples of this category, we will consider now two other ap- proaches, both of which have been tried many times and ended in failure; be- cause of this, their viability remains open to question.
I am talking about the history of literary forms and that of literary themes. The idea of doing literary history as a history of literary forms was the great dream of the Russian formalists, and later of the Prague structuralists. At the roots of this project initiated by Tynianov and taken up later in Prague 41 by Mukarovsky is the idea that literary forms have their own existence and agency. I believe there is a subtle point here calling for deeper exploration. Literary forms can certainly be said to have their own histories.
One could imagine, for example, a history of the octave, or a history of terza rima from Dante through Machiavelli to the modern era, or a history of poesia barbara modern accented poetry that imitates classical quantitative meters , of prose poetry, of free verse. Each of these literary forms appeared at a certain moment in the development of literature and not before or after; each had an originator and went through transformations and innovations.
And yet, after all the great work done on one aspect of the history of literary forms or another, the realization has been that it is not possible to construct a proper literary history on this basis, since a literary history that takes forms as its point of departure will never escape those forms into the broader landscape of literary production. Less frequent have been attempts to write literary histories focusing on lit- erary themes. Moreover, the images are placed in connection with a larger and more meaningful system, with the broader cultural or literary imaginary, and even with a generalizing history of the relationship between humankind and things, culture and nature.
But even with such an enthralling instance of this type of work, the ques- tion nevertheless arises of whether it is really possible to write satisfying literary history by beginning from a single theme or even an entire network of themes. The question remains even in cases where a scholar departs from a single el- ement or network and connects it to a more general and comprehensive the- matic structure that constituted —so he may claim—the imaginary of an entire historical era.
A work like that of Ernst Robert Curtius, on a quite broad series 43 of themes that recur in classical and medieval literature , though having some of the features I am talking about, is in the final analysis rather partial. The themes or topoi that it takes as its purview are appealed to in order to support or collaborate a historical thesis that is quite subjective and clearly ideologically motivated: that of the continuity of the classical Christian tradition and medi- 44 eval literature. Thematic reconstruction can too often degenerate into a kind of historical taking of sides, an almost obsessive reference back to past tradi- tions, all within a generalizing and universalizing drift that more often than not ends up occluding the particular characteristics of individual periods or works.
Examples of successful thematic research do exist, made possible by a certain compactness of the themes in question in particular historical periods, or by 45 the particular density of certain thematic strands , which thus collected around themselves whole sections of the imaginary in a consistent way through vari- 46 ous periods of history. And departing from partial reconstructions, it is difficult to attain the ideal of a generalized and comprehensive literary history.
Whenever one finishes reading a work of this nature, the same question always arises: are these literary genres and styles best defined and described in terms of the the- matic structures that characterize them or in terms of their formal and rhetori- cal features? The real achievement would be to provide at the same time a history of liter- ary themes and literary forms, with the two aspects linked closely together.
But I am not sure whether even this, once it was attained, would be enough. One thing, in any case, is certain: whoever takes it upon himself to write a literary history should be aware that he has in front of him a choice, a necessity to take an explicit stand in terms of his point of view and his aims. This is what David Perkins means when he writes that a literary history must be written from 50 a specific point ofview.
Bearing this principle in mind, we can add that the most useful and convinc- ing literary histories are those that combine more than one of the approaches I have surveyed, thus avoiding the limitations of any single approach. Avoiding a simple identification of literary history as a whole with one type of literary his- tory is particularly important for those who focus on context and risk thereby making a history of literary works into a history of documents.
If we are really serious about constructing an image of the flower that turns to us from the past and lifts itself into the sky of history, we have to embrace multiple perspectives, triangulating contrasting approaches and insisting on maintaining and explor- ing the relationship between texts and contexts. We come now to the second question I wanted to ask: how does one do lit- erary history?
Well, how are literary histories done?
Gravar, carregar, opprimir, vexar Gritaria, alarido, algazarra, berra— abrir, entalhar, exarar, insria, vozeria - celeuma. Offers a shared terrace, with an amazing view to the city skyline and St. It is clear that the theory of liter- ary field has more potential for the study of literary agents and producers; the theories of literary institution have greater applicability in the study of material conditions and infrastructures and the conditions of readership, diffusion, and market. Dario rated it really liked it May 20, Litigio, demanda, pleito — contenenfeitado.
These ap- proaches are narrating and describing. There is a continual oscillation between these two modes of writing in the works that we call literary histories. Often an author halts his or her narrative to begin a description of individual works of art; he contemplates and analyzes them, describing them in all their specificity, letting us understand how they are constructed. Then, knowing well, like any good storyteller, that audiences do not like excessively long descriptions, he or she returns to the dominant mode, to the rhetorical and structural principle at the foundation of all literary histories, that is, to narrative.
In literary histories, all these elements are integrated and organized into a narrative that conforms to the conventions of logical and linear development, makes use of effects such as complication as denouement, and pays attention to the devices of suspense 52 and surprise. Of course, there is more than one way of organizing a narrative. There is the classic model of the Bildungsroman. There is the foregrounding and placing in relief of a few exemplary characters of literary history in a manner reminiscent of the historical novel.
There is the exciting journey between texts encountered almost by chance in a narrative that is like nothing so much as an adventure novel. There is the dense cataloging of dates, lives, genres, and texts in a liter- ary history that approaches the nineteenth-century novel in its overfed vastness. There is the imitation of the experimental novel, aiming to provide a deliberately fragmented account of the literature of the past.
And finally there is the ambi- tious attempt at creating a literary history that is consonant with the modern or postmodern sensibility, with multiple plotlines and perspectives, intersections and superimpositions, and a few pregnant moments in which the longue dure'e breaks into the present, revealing the existential timelessness of the human condition.
Perkins, Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Taine, Histoire de la Iitte'rature anylaise, 2nd ed. The interpretation of the two concepts of documents and monuments among histo- rians has varied substantially. Wellek, review of C. Mendelsohn Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, , Ceserani, Raccontare la letteratura Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, Perkins, ed. Marti Paris: Seuil, , 1: Ceserani, Raccontare la letteratura, For an introduction to reception theory, see H.
Tompkins, ed. Holub, ed. Warning, ed. For an introduction to the New Historicism, see S. Veeser, ed. Wilson and R. Dutton, eds. Payne, ed. Febvre and H. Furet and J.
Published by Winter Heidelberg beginning in Legouis and L. The distinction between Kultur and Ziuilisation is very neat in German: by Kultur is understood the original, hereditary patrimony of a people, the totality of its traditions, customs, and characteristics; by Ziuilisation is meant a process of cultural, intellectual, and spiritual refinement. See R. Of interest in this regard even in the title is H.
Bhabha, Nation and Narration London: Routledge, Along the same lines, with particular attention to literature: G. Gerratana Turin: Einaudi, , See C. Dionisotti, Geograjia estoria della letteratura italiana Turin: Einaudi, In Italy, there has been a huge surge in linguistic history, often involving sophis- ticated methodologies and always diverging from simple linguistic analysis to larger his- torical structures and events. See, in particular, F. Bruni, ed. Asor Rosa, ed. Branca, Tradizione delle opere di G.
Boccaccio Rome: Edizioni di storia e lettera- tura, ; Boccaccio medieuale Florence: Sansoni, I discuss these issues at some length in my Raccontare la letteratura, pp. Fuller references: R. Escarpit et al.
Escarpit, ed. See, for applications, A. Boschetti, ed. Prendergast, ed. An exemplary collection of such material can be found in Intellet- tuali epotere, edited by C. Vivanti, vol. Exemplary in this connection are J. This is the case, for example, for a theme like shipwreck, present in literature from Homer to the postmodernists: see L. Sannia Nowe and M. Virdis, eds. On thematic criticism in general, see W. Sollors, ed. Storia della lingua italiana. Turin: Einaudi, Auerbach, E. Bakhtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University ofTexas Press, Friend Reviews.
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Ensina-me a Voar Sobre os Telhados , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Ensina-me a Voar Sobre os Telhados. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. Sort order. Boring, boring Apr 08, Suzel rated it really liked it. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Readers also enjoyed.
Baby Archie: tudo o que precisa de saber sobre o primeiro filho dos Duques de Sussex. Os Duques de Sussex deram as boas-vindas ao seu primeiro filho a 6 de maio de Das primeiras imagens ao batizado, que aconteceu no dia 6 de julho de , reunimos tudo o que precisa de saber sobre Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Vivo numa bolha com antena para o mundo. Aqui, existo eu, o meu melhor eu, o meu pior eu.
Quando os testes terminam. O que quer que afete um destino, afeta todos indiretamente. Bye, bye, copycat. Na forma de nail art? Ainda mais. Precisamos, sequer? Mudemos de perspetiva e entremos. Na sua casa em Lisboa, com certeza. Eis outras curiosidades que tem de saber sobre Jonathan Van Ness. A Vogue faz uma retrospetiva da sua vida. De quanto tempo precisa para estar totalmente pronta? Lanchar na pastelaria da Prada. Beber um copo no lounge de Roberto Cavalli. Fashion foodies , tomem nota. A diretora de design, Justicia Ruano, conta-nos tudo. Diana Ross a cantar Upside Down para a Vogue?
Tem pelo menos cinco. E todas elas, variam de acordo com os tons e personalidades das mulheres que escolhem usar esta cor. Uma fotografia em movimento. Lantejoulas, plumas, licras Quando Ericka Hart nasceu, nasceu ativista. Estivemos com eles, sob o sol da Riviera. Conhece bem o seu corpo? O que vai acontecer aos anjos?
Percorremos os melhores looks da atriz australiana no evento com mais glamour da Riviera Francesa. Nem todos os fatos nascem de forma igual. Forget every label you ever imagined for Sharon Stone. The best feature of the actress that imprinted forever in our minds that iconic leg-cross in Basic Instinct is that she is above any label. Including that pivotal moment in the history of Cinema. Tendo esse conceito em mente, reunimos os cinco momentos mais teatrais da passadeira vermelha da Met Gala Reunimos 15 batons nesse tom.
Anticipating that issue, that arrives on newsstands today, we highlight three quotes from the interview with the actress. Billboard Music Awards os looks da passadeira vermelha e os vencedores. Mas de onde? Desde quando? Mais comum do que se pensa. Dos comprimentos sereia de Kim Kardashian West e Selena Gomez aos "acordei assim" de Gigi Hadid ou Camila Morrone, reunimos os cortes longos para experimentar esta primavera.
Uma jornalista da Vogue embarcou num detox digital e voltou com a resposta. Respondemos a tudo. Parece-nos justo, uma vez que estamos a falar de Naomi Campbell. Carrie Bradshaw, com certeza, concordaria. It has nothing to do with what happens to us, but with what we do with it. Go super or go home. Depois de marcas como Josefinas e Dr. Thando Hopa: "Enquanto mulher negra, africana e pessoa com albinismo lutei toda a minha vida pelo empoderamento". E tem albinismo.
Thando Hopa: "As a black, african, and woman with albinism, I have fought for empowerment my whole life". She is black. She is African. She is a woman. And she has albinism. Thando Hopa could be described using only these adjectives, if the blood running in her veins was not made from a deafening activism. Mais do que uma lenda do grunge, Kurt Cobain era o contrapeso de uma sociedade profundamente machista. O resultado foi este. Floral para mim, amadeirado para ti? Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. Abrimo-lo precisamente neste momento em que a Natureza se prepara para renascer e iniciar um novo ciclo e foi como abrir uma caixa de Pandora, mas em bom.
Provocadores, desobedientes, resistentes.
Chama-se Zumi e foi inspirada na Zumi Rosow. A Vogue foi investigar. Mais self-dates , menos pudor, novos prazeres. Chegou a hora de lavar roupa suja. Cortesia do maquilhador Patrick Ta, a modelo antecipou a despedida dos dias mais frios e a chegada do sol de primavera com o tom de amarelo perfeito.
Na passadeira vermelha, as escolhas das vencedoras da estatueta de para Melhor Atriz ficam para sempre imortalizadas em fotografias. Miuccia Prada levou para a passerelle um olhar mais obscuro do romantismo. Estes foram os resultados. A passadeira vermelha mais longa da award season estende-se a 24 de fevereiro no Dolby Theater, em Los Angeles. A Vogue conversou com dois especialistas para tentar decifrar as melhores formas de sarar as cicatrizes de um ego ferido. A alfaiataria inundou a passerelle da Self-Portrait, etiqueta de Han Chong.
Senhoras e senhores, a Vogue apresenta Queen of Gaya. Valentim passe em branco. Temos 23 looks que o comprovam. Com estes doze produtos de Beleza, qualquer bela adormecida se transforma numa morning person. No dia em que A Favorita se estreia nos cinemas, Olivia Colman aka Rainha Anne fala-nos sobre o filme e a sua personagem.