4/9一戰 730 + JJ (renaissance women原文)

哇,,沙发~~MM的分数很好看啊~~

我要有这个分就高兴得一塌糊涂了哈

GXMM,谢谢JJ

Jacob Burckhardt’s view that Renaissance
women “stood on a footing of perfect equality” with Renaissance men has been
repeatedly cited by feminists both as a prelude to the marshaling of rich
historical evidence of women’s inequality and as a polemical signal of the
theoretical importance of gender difference in our constructions of the
Renaissance or of any other historical period.
            In striking contrast to Burckhardt, cast in
the role of the grandly erroneous patriarch, Joan Kelly was until recently cast
as the good mother or muse in the field of renaissance (or early modern)
feminist studies. In her famous essay of 1977, “Did Women Have a Renaissance?”
She challenged Burckhardt, and his cultural authority, with an argument for the
Renaissance as a period of economic and social decline for women relative both
to Renaissance men and to medieval women.
            Recently, however, as all the books under
review suggest, a significant trend in feminist scholarship has entailed a
rejection both of Kelly’s dark vision of the Renaissance and of Burckhardt’s
rosy one. For reasons worth pondering, this trend seems most evident in books
that focus on middling and upper-class women whose ability to write gave them
unusual access to the historical record. These books offer what we might call a
“cautiously optimistic” assessment of Renaissance women’s achievements while at
the same time stressing the social obstacles they faced when they sought to
raise their “oppositional voices.”

另一段，說那個Tina K的，The nature, degree, and effects of a
critical identification with the objects (subjects) of one’s inquiry are
particularly vexing issues for the historians and literary scholars who study
early modern women writers. Such women were – simply by virtue of their
literacy – members of a tiny minority of the population, and it is risky to
take their textual depictions of their experiences as representative of “female
experience” in any general sense. Tina K’s fascinating study of six Renaissance
women writers making “room for self-expression“ under adverse circumstances
does tend at times to conflate “women” and “women writers.” When K does this,
and also when she suggests that the women writers she studies, unlike royal
women, were”typical of other women at that point of English culture”, she
assumes too easily, I think, that women’s gender, irrespective of other social
differences including access to literacy, allows us to constitute them as a
social group and as our object of analysis. Her book, like the others under
review, shows little awareness of the critiques of this epistemological
construction of “women” as an object of analysis mounted by writers such as…

Although K does not engage with the kind of
questions posed by recent postmodern and postcolonial feminist writing, she is
very acute on the important gaps that existed in Renaissance society (and by
implication in our own) between ideologies oppressive to women, on the one
hand, and women’s actual behavior, on the other. Anticipating L’s book, which
deals with several of the same authors, K explores the ways in which (educated)
women, from the middle and upper ranks of society, carved out “meaningful,
productive, and creative roles” for themselves.

哇,感谢LS啊~~~

想要啊,当然啦~~继续PO嘛呵呵

恭喜恭喜!!!

MM 你好, 想问一下那有Renaissance women期刊是什么名字的啊, 我很想提高阅读, 看来以后要多读期刊.