Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
C o M P A R A T I v E L I T E R A T U R E S T U D I E S and of the baroque and neobaroque movements. Quevedo, one of Paz’s (and Borges’s) favorite baroque poets is mentioned only once. Third, there are many secondhand citations in the book, which sug- gests that Egginton got ideas from other critics, whose quotations of the authors studied he lifts. Fourth, his grasp of the secondary bibliography on the baroque is insufficient, though he sends kudos to previous critics, including me. Egginton ignores, for example, René Wellek’s classic essay on the history of the concept of the baroque, as well as Irving Leonard’s foundational Baroque Times in Old Mexico on what has come to be known, thanks to Mariano Picón Salas’s classic 1944 study, as the “Barroco de Indias.” Egginton is self-consciously worried about his use of “theory.” He writes, “But what is the implication of all this? That Góngora is deconstructive before his time? o r is this not yet again a case of imposing contemporary theoretical trends on unsuspecting poets of the past?” (64–65). Poets of the past are always unwary of
Comparative Literature Studies – Penn State University Press
Published: May 10, 2012
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.