| 000 | 06058nam a22005655i 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 201815 | ||
| 003 | IT-RoAPU | ||
| 005 | 20230501181826.0 | ||
| 006 | m|||||o||d|||||||| | ||
| 007 | cr || |||||||| | ||
| 008 | 230103t20102010nyu fo d z eng d | ||
| 020 |
_a9780823228478 _qprint |
||
| 020 |
_a9780823238132 _qPDF |
||
| 024 | 7 |
_a10.1515/9780823238132 _2doi |
|
| 035 | _a(DE-B1597)9780823238132 | ||
| 035 | _a(DE-B1597)555096 | ||
| 035 | _a(OCoLC)1099066065 | ||
| 040 |
_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda |
||
| 072 | 7 |
_aLIT004120 _2bisacsh |
|
| 082 | 0 | 4 | _a820.915 |
| 084 | _aonline - DeGruyter | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aAnderson, Judith H. _eautore |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aReading the Allegorical Intertext : _bChaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton / _cJudith H. Anderson. |
| 264 | 1 |
_aNew York, NY : _bFordham University Press, _c[2010] |
|
| 264 | 4 | _c©2010 | |
| 300 | _a1 online resource (452 p.) | ||
| 336 |
_atext _btxt _2rdacontent |
||
| 337 |
_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia |
||
| 338 |
_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier |
||
| 347 |
_atext file _bPDF _2rda |
||
| 505 | 0 | 0 |
_tFrontmatter -- _tContents -- _tPrior Publication -- _tIntroduction. Reading the Allegorical Intertext -- _tPart 1. Allegorical Reflections of The Canterbury Tales in The Faerie Queene -- _t1. Chaucer’s and Spenser’s Reflexive Narrators -- _t2. What Comes After Chaucer’s But in The Faerie Queene -- _t3. ‘‘Pricking on the plaine’’: Spenser’s Intertextual Beginnings and Endings -- _t4. Allegory, Irony, Despair: Chaucer’s Pardoner’s and Franklin’s Tales and Spenser’s Faerie Queene, Books I and III -- _t5. Eumnestes’ ‘‘immortall scrine’’: Spenser’s Archive -- _t6. Spenser’s Use of Chaucer’s Melibee: Allegory, Narrative, History -- _tPart 2. Agency, Allegory, and History within the Spenserian Intertext -- _t7. Spenser’s Muiopotmos and Chaucer’s Nun’s Priest’s Tale -- _t8. Arthur and Argante: Parodying the Ideal Vision -- _t9. Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls and Refractions of a Veiled Venus in The Faerie Queene -- _t10. The Antiquities of Fairyland and Ireland -- _t11. Better a mischief than an inconvenience: ‘‘The saiyng self ’’ in Spenser’s View of the Present State of Ireland -- _tPart 3. Spenserian Allegory in the Intertexts of Shakespeare and Milton -- _t12. The Conspiracy of Realism: Impasse and Vision in The Faerie Queene and Shakespeare’s King Lear -- _t13. Venus and Adonis: Spenser, Shakespeare, and the Forms of Desire -- _t14. Flowers and Boars: Surmounting Sexual Binarism in Spenser’s Garden of Adonis -- _t15. Androcentrism and Acrasian Fantasies in the Bower of Bliss -- _t16. Beyond Binarism: Eros/Death and Venus/Mars in Antony and Cleopatra and The Faerie Queene -- _t17. Patience and Passion in Shakespeare and Milton -- _t18. ‘‘Real or Allegoric’’ in Herbert and Milton: Thinking through Difference -- _t19. Spenser and Milton: The Mind’s Allegorical Place -- _tNotes -- _tIndex |
| 506 | 0 |
_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star |
|
| 520 | _aJudith H. Anderson conceives the intertext as a relation between or among texts that encompasses both Kristevan intertextuality and traditional relationships of influence, imitation, allusion, and citation. Like the Internet, the intertext is a state, or place, of potential expressed in ways ranging from deliberate emulation to linguistic free play. Relatedly, the intertext is also a convenient fiction that enables examination of individual agency and sociocultural determinism. Anderson’s intertext is allegorical because Spenser’s Faerie Queene is pivotal to her study and because allegory, understood as continued or moving metaphor, encapsulates, even as it magnifies, the process of signification. Her title signals the variousness of an intertext extending from Chaucer through Shakespeare to Milton and the breadth of allegory itself. Literary allegory, in Anderson’s view, is at once a mimetic form and a psychic one—a process thinking that combines mind with matter, emblem with narrative, abstraction with history. Anderson’s first section focuses on relations between Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, including the role of the narrator, the nature of the textual source, the dynamics of influence, and the bearing of allegorical narrative on lyric vision. The second centers on agency and cultural influence in a variety of Spenserian and medieval texts. Allegorical form, a recurrent concern throughout, becomes the pressing issue of section three. This section treats plays and poems of Shakespeare and Milton and includes two intertextually relevant essays on Spenser.How Paradise Lost or Shakespeare’s plays participate in allegorical form is controversial. Spenser’s experiments with allegory revise its form, and this intervention is largely what Shakespeare and Milton find in his poetry and develop. Anderson’s book, the result of decades of teaching and writing about allegory, especially Spenserian allegory, will reorient thinking about fundamental critical issues and the landmark texts in which they play themselves out. | ||
| 538 | _aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web. | ||
| 546 | _aIn English. | ||
| 588 | 0 | _aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 03. Jan 2023) | |
| 650 | 0 |
_aEnglish literature _xHistory and criticism _xTheory, etc. |
|
| 650 | 0 | _aInfluence (Literary, artistic, etc.). | |
| 650 | 0 | _aIntertextuality. | |
| 650 | 0 | _aSymbolism in literature. | |
| 650 | 4 | _aLiterary Studies. | |
| 650 | 4 | _aMedieval Studies. | |
| 650 | 4 | _aRenaissance Studies. | |
| 650 | 7 |
_aLITERARY CRITICISM / European / English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh. _2bisacsh |
|
| 850 | _aIT-RoAPU | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9780823238132?locatt=mode:legacy |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780823238132 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 |
_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9780823238132/original |
| 942 | _cEB | ||
| 999 |
_c201815 _d201815 |
||