Jacob Burckhardt’s view that RenaissanceEuropean women “stood on a footing of perfect equality” with Renaissance menhas been repeatedly cited by feminist scholars as a prelude to theirpresentation of rich historical evidence of women’s inequality. JB就文艺复兴时期的女性与男性立足于完美的平等的观点，反复被女性主义学者引用，作为他们展示历史上丰富的关于女性不平等的证据的前言。 In striking contrast to Burckhardt, JoanKelly in her famous 1977 essay, “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” argued that theRenaissance was a period of economic and social decline for women relative bothto Renaissance men and to medieval women. 而JK的观点与JB观点形成鲜明对比的，在她的著名的1977文章中，她反问道：女性经历了文艺复兴吗？争论到相对于文艺复兴期的男性和中世纪女性，文艺复兴对于女性来说是一个经济和社会的衰退。
Recently, however, a significant trendamong feminist scholars has entailed a rejection of both Kelly’s dark vision ofthe Renaissance and Burckhardt’s rosy one. 然而近期，女性主义学者中的主流趋势观点摒弃JK对文艺复兴的消极观点和JB的乐观看法。
Many recent works by these scholars stressthe ways in which differences among Renaissance women—especially in terms ofsocial status and religion—work to complicate thekinds of generalizations both Burckhardt and Kelly made on the basis of theirobservations about upper-class Italian women. 近期的学者作品通过强调文艺复兴女性在工作方式上的不同，尤其是在社会地位和信仰上，来复杂化JB 和JK基于他们对上层意大利女性的观察而得出的概化类的结论。
新主流摒弃了JB和JK的关于文艺复兴女性地位的两极态度。
The trend is also evident, however, in works focusing on those middle- andupper-class European women gives them disproportionaterepresentation in the historical record.
为什么用了however， 因为上文是说很多学者的作品强调不同阶级女性的不同，而此处却是说在一些专注于一个阶级女性的作品中也有这个趋势，主体出现了相反的变化因此用了however。 然而，在一些聚焦于有写作能力的中产及上层阶级欧洲女性的作品中,这个趋势也很明显，也赋予了这些作品在历史记录中占据了和实际不相称的代表。 摒弃两级女性地位的著作也体现了这个流行，并使这些作品在历史记录里意义非凡 Suchwomen were, simply by virtue of their literacy, members of a tiny minority ofthe population, so it is risky to take their descriptions of their experiencesas typical of “female experience “in any general sense. 一般意义上，仅仅因为她们的读写能力，而将这些只占小部分的女性对她们的经历的描述作为典型的女性经历是不可靠的。
Tina Krontiris, for example, in herfascinating study of six Renaissance women writers, does tend at times toconflate “women” and “women writers,” assuming that women’s gender,irrespective of other social differences, including literacy, allows us to viewwomen as a homogeneous social group and make that group an object of analysis. 比如，在TK 的对6位文艺复兴女性作家的精彩的研究中，有时候确实趋向于将女性和女性作家混淆，不顾其他的包括认知能力等的社会性的不同，假定女性的性别应许我们视女性为同类的社会团体并把这个团体作为分析对象。
Nonetheless, Krontiris makes a significantcontribution to the field and is representative of those authors who offer whatmight be called a cautiously optimistic assessment of Renaissance women’sachievements, although she also stresses the social obstacles Renaissance womenfaced when they sought to raise their “oppositional voices.” 尽管如此，TK还是在这个领域做出了杰出的贡献，并且，尽管她也强调了当文艺复兴女性寻找机会为表示反对而发声时所遇到的社会阻力为什么用了although是因为与JK的负面观点有一个类似点，她仍可以代表那群对文艺复兴女性作所谓的谨慎乐观主意评定的作家。 cautiously optimistic assessment ofRenaissance women’s achievements对文艺复兴女性的正确认识态度。 Krontiris is concerned to show womenintentionally negotiating some power for themselves (at least in the realm ofpublic discourse) against potentially constraining ideologies, but in her soberand thoughtful concluding remarks, she suggests that such verbal opposition tocultural stereotypes was highly circumscribed; women seldom attacked the basicassumptions in the ideologies that oppressed them. TK意在展现女性为了她们自己的一些反对潜在的制约思想的权利（至少在一些公共演讲领域）而有意地交涉协商，而在她庄重而又精心构思的结束语中，TK又暗示到，这样的口头上的对文化上刻板印象的反对，是很有局限性的。女性很少攻击那些压迫她们的基本假设前提。
按照自己理解翻译的，希望有人可以指正。 其中想问问大家那个标红的work到底是什么意思或者用法？
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2017-2-7 13:11:56
收藏
收藏
