Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Transnational Poetics

A Transnational Poetics MLQ March 2011 kins with their points of departure. Their discussions of the paradigms of monarchy and diplomacy, sovereignty and gender, religious identity, trade relations, and the notion of the foreign deploy a complex historicist approach that has room for ambivalence and tension, both “then” and “now.” Reading the historical archive and Shakespeare’s plays interactively, without reducing one to the other, the authors exemplify new ways of reading both. They make a strong argument in their introduction for a homology between their own epistemological interdisciplinarity and the processes — heterogeneously discursive, political, and economic — whose workings they seek to make visible. They do not feel obliged to agree with each other, but they regard their disagreements with each other and even, on occasion, with themselves as productive of a historicist subjectivity more interested in seeing the conceptual connections between academic “disciplinary assumptions” and “a consensus about an English nation” (7). If Shakespeare’s plays can establish and police, while also calling into question, the boundaries between English and foreign identities, we might find ourselves asking not “who” is English (or American or European) but how a particular national identity is being constituted and maintained. In how brief a http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Modern Language Quarterly: A Journal of Literary History Duke University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/a-transnational-poetics-w5lfIeLwSH

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2011 by University of Washington
ISSN
0026-7929
eISSN
1527-1943
DOI
10.1215/00267929-2010-037
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

MLQ March 2011 kins with their points of departure. Their discussions of the paradigms of monarchy and diplomacy, sovereignty and gender, religious identity, trade relations, and the notion of the foreign deploy a complex historicist approach that has room for ambivalence and tension, both “then” and “now.” Reading the historical archive and Shakespeare’s plays interactively, without reducing one to the other, the authors exemplify new ways of reading both. They make a strong argument in their introduction for a homology between their own epistemological interdisciplinarity and the processes — heterogeneously discursive, political, and economic — whose workings they seek to make visible. They do not feel obliged to agree with each other, but they regard their disagreements with each other and even, on occasion, with themselves as productive of a historicist subjectivity more interested in seeing the conceptual connections between academic “disciplinary assumptions” and “a consensus about an English nation” (7). If Shakespeare’s plays can establish and police, while also calling into question, the boundaries between English and foreign identities, we might find ourselves asking not “who” is English (or American or European) but how a particular national identity is being constituted and maintained. In how brief a

Journal

Modern Language Quarterly: A Journal of Literary HistoryDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.