„Troynovant Revisited. Strategic hybridisation in the competing traditions of classical antiquity in English Literature c. 1380 – 1620“

重访特洛伊诺万特。

• 批准号: 289580041
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Andrew James Johnston
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Institut für Englische Philologie
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Units
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2015-12-31 至 2022-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/289580041?language=en
• 关键词: Troynovant; Revisited.; Strategic; hybridisation; competing

In the second funding period, the subproject continues to investigate competing medieval and Renaissance concepts of antiquity in vernacular English Troy texts written between c. 1375 and c. 1620 as a problem of a systematic hybridization of literary traditions. In this context, the constructions and functionalizations of various ,old‘-,new‘ dichotomies are understood as strategic decisions made within a field of conflicting conceptions of Antiquity which are in turn subject to a constant process of aesthetic and political re-definition in view of specific notions of historicity, authorship and generic traditions as well as attendant ideological and political concerns. In the Anglophone literature of the Middle Ages, the literary engagement with the ,Matter of Rome‘ coincides roughly with the adoption of early forms of Italian humanism and its different conceptualization of Antiquity. Thus, the relationship between ,new‘ and ,old‘, a question already addressed in the tradition of the romans dʼantiquité, appears in a different light: a textual tradition that is based mostly on Guido delle Colonne’s Historia destructionis Troiae, which is characterized by a specifically medieval notion of Antiquity, is joined by an early humanist Trojan tradition that puts the problem of classical sources, literary models, genre conventions and topoi on the intellectual agenda. Yet, the departure from medieval patterns is far less complete than 19th-century clichés of the Renaissance would have us believe. In the first funding period, the sub-project focused on three medieval and early modern threads of the medieval and early modern transmission of Troy: individual Trojan episodes (e.g. Chaucer’s Troilus), vernacular ,translations‘ of Guido’s Historia (e.g. Lydgate’s Troy Book), and texts in which Troy functions as a poetological cipher (e.g. St. Erkenwald). All of these texts frequently reference (partially conflicting) conceptions of Antiquity and generate as well as figure literary innovation in terms of the strategic purification and hybridization of different ,antiquities‘, of multiple temporalities. The various constructions of divergent temporalities appear to ensue in front of a generic/genre-poetological background that will be studied in detail in the second funding period. Processes of purification and hybridization in figurations of ,novelty‘ within the mentioned Troy traditions are frequently signaled by generic references. The poetological relevance of such generic references within their respective purifications and hybridizations of multiple temporalities and antiquities remains under-appreciated in literary scholarship especially as concerns attendant conceptualizations of literary authorship and innovation, which will be the main area of inquiry in the second funding period.

在第二个资助期，该子项目继续调查竞争的中世纪和文艺复兴时期的古代概念在白话英语特洛伊文本之间写的c。1375和C。1620年作为一个系统的杂交文学传统的问题。在这种背景下，各种“旧”、“新”二分法的构建和功能化被理解为在一个相互冲突的古代概念领域内做出的战略决策，这些概念反过来又受制于一个不断的美学和政治重新定义的过程，这是鉴于历史性、作者身份和一般传统的特定概念以及随之而来的意识形态和政治问题。在中世纪的英语文学中，与“罗马的问题”的文学接触大致与意大利人文主义的早期形式及其对古代的不同概念的采用相吻合。因此，新的“和旧的”之间的关系，一个已经在传统的古罗马人的问题，出现在不同的光：一个主要基于Guido delle Colonne的Historia destritionis Troiae的文本传统，其特征是一个特定的中世纪古代概念，与早期人文主义特洛伊传统相结合，将古典来源，文学模式，类型惯例和知识议程上的主题。然而，与中世纪模式的背离远不如19世纪文艺复兴的陈词滥调让我们相信的那样彻底。在第一个资助期内，该分项目侧重于特洛伊的中世纪和早期现代传播的三个线索：特洛伊的个别情节（如乔叟的特洛伊），方言，Guido的Historia的翻译（如Lydgate的特洛伊书），以及特洛伊作为诗歌密码的文本（如St. Erkenwald）。所有这些文本经常引用（部分冲突）古代的概念，并产生和形象文学创新的战略净化和杂交不同，古代的，多个时间性。不同的时间性的各种结构似乎是在一个类属/体裁-诗学背景的前面发生的，这将在第二个资助期详细研究。在提到的特洛伊传统中，净化和杂交的过程经常被通用的引用所标志。这种通用参考各自的净化和杂交的多个时间和古物的诗学相关性仍然在文学奖学金，特别是关注文学作者和创新，这将是调查的主要领域在第二个资助期伴随概念化的重视不足。