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

Learn More →

Creole Subjects in the Colonial Americas: Empires, Texts, Identities (review)

Creole Subjects in the Colonial Americas: Empires, Texts, Identities (review) 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Comparative Literature Studies Penn State University Press

Creole Subjects in the Colonial Americas: Empires, Texts, Identities (review)

Comparative Literature Studies , Volume 49 (2) – May 10, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/creole-subjects-in-the-colonial-americas-empires-texts-identities-U2uEa9kUMQ

References

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

Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University.
ISSN
1528-4212

Abstract

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

Journal

Comparative Literature StudiesPenn State University Press

Published: May 10, 2012

There are no references for this article.