Reviewed by:

• Historicizing Modernists: Approaches to "Archivalism," ed. by Matthew Feldman, Anna Svendsen, and Erik Tonning
• Wim Van Mierlo (bio)

Historicizing Modernists is a fascinating collection of essays that looks at a range of modernist authors against the backdrop of their time. The book brings together thirteen essays originally presented at a conference held at the University of York in May 2018 in celebration of the tenth anniversary of the prestigious "Historicizing Modernism" series published by the Bloomsbury Academic Press. As such, the present volume fulfils the same aims as that series: to challenge traditional literary-critical work by drawing on documentary and archival sources with a view to providing fresh intellectual perspectives on the work and methods of modernist writers. The new essays in this volume offer in condensed, but no less rigorous, form what the book series to date has done so well: to genuinely break new ground.

That the collection is missing an essay on James Joyce is due no doubt to the luck of the draw that comes with conference volumes like this. Nonetheless, readers of the JJQ will not be disappointed by the rich pickings on offer. Aside from two contributions on Virginia Woolf and two on Ezra Pound, there are essays on Gertrude Stein, T. S. Eliot, Samuel Beckett, David Jones, and Katherine Mansfield, on two queer late modernists, Charles Henri Ford and Richard Bruce Nugent, and on the critic Q. D. Leavis.

What the volume amply demonstrates is how modernist authors are "historicized," whether this is in literary-critical, biographical, or practical-editorial terms. Using untapped correspondence at the Beinecke Library, Svetlana Ehtee shows just how deeply embroiled Pound was with Nazi and Fascist figures, while Alec Marsh scrutinizes the letters Pound exchanged with the Fascist poet Olivia Rossetti Agresti (a relative of William and Dante Gabriel Rossetti) to discover that the "esoteric surface of The Cantos" actually hides a "hard, activist core" that cannot easily be explained away by Pound's apologists (88). Jonas Kurlberg, too, uses a biographical approach in his analysis of Eliot's involvement with a group called the Moot who were creating, in the 1930s and 1940s, the intellectual foundations for a Christian cultural revolution. His is an important contribution to the understanding of Eliot's Anglo-Catholicism, which largely remains in need of specific historical contextualization. Natasha Periyan, by contrast, has written an excellent and subtly argued analysis of the "biopolitics" of intelligence and sentiment in Mrs Dalloway, by which she means the political discourses concerned with "optimizing the 'aptitudes' of the population" (53).¹ [End Page 409] Periyan traces how this essentially eugenicist and classist view is part of the novel's political and social concerns, both as representation and critique. Both Michèle Barrett (on WoolfNotes Online²) and Gerri Kimber (on the Edinburgh Edition of the Collected Works of Katherine Mansfield³) write about the relevance and role played by textual and editorial work in historicizing modernism. Finally, the essays by Alexander Howard and David Deutsch on Ford and Nugent play an important role in recovering these queer authors from the margins of literary history by recreating aspects of the "historical milieu" of these writers (210). In the case of the iconoclast Ford, this is the idea of writing, creating a legacy, and being/remaining visible by those who write from a position of not-belonging. Deutsch's take on Nugent, by contrast, is an exploration of "angelic rebels" (216) as a key theme in his unpublished novel Uranus in Cancer which deals with achieving an "effective sociopolitical queer network" (223).⁴

The essays in Historizing Modernists are well researched, cogently argued, critically important, and, therefore, highly valuable. As case studies, they show in a variety of interesting ways what can be gained from a historicist and archival approach, but there is little wider reflection on what this entails and how it is done. Even though the volume is divided into two sections—"Historicizing Canonical Modernists" and "Emerging Themes and Approaches"—the question that Matthew Feldman...

审阅者：

• 现代主义者的历史化：“档案主义”的方法，编辑。作者：马修·费尔德曼、安娜·斯文森和埃里克·托宁
• 维姆·范·米尔洛（简介）

《现代主义者的历史化》是一本引人入胜的论文集，在他们的时代背景下审视了一系列现代主义作家。该书汇集了最初于 2018 年 5 月在约克大学举行的一次会议上发表的 13 篇文章，该会议旨在庆祝布鲁姆斯伯里学术出版社出版的著名的“现代主义历史化”系列十周年。因此，本卷实现了与该系列相同的目标：通过利用文献和档案资料来挑战传统的文学批评作品，以期为现代主义作家的作品和方法提供新的知识视角。本书中的新文章以简洁但同样严谨的方式提供了迄今为止该系列丛书所取得的成功：真正开辟新天地。

该文集缺少一篇关于詹姆斯·乔伊斯的文章，这无疑是由于像这样的会议卷所带来的运气。尽管如此，《 JJQ》的读者不会对所提供的丰富选择感到失望。除了两篇关于弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的文章和两篇关于埃兹拉·庞德的文章外，还有关于格特鲁德·斯坦因、TS·艾略特、塞缪尔·贝克特、大卫·琼斯和凯瑟琳·曼斯菲尔德的文章，关于两位酷儿晚期现代主义者查尔斯·亨利·福特和理查德·布鲁斯·纽金特的文章，以及关于评论家QD利维斯。

该书充分展示了现代主义作家如何“历史化”，无论是文学批评、传记还是实用编辑术语。斯维特兰娜·埃蒂利用拜内克图书馆未公开的信件，展示了庞德与纳粹和法西斯人物的纠葛有多深，而亚历克·马什则仔细研究了庞德与法西斯诗人奥利维亚·罗塞蒂·阿格雷斯蒂（威廉·加布里埃尔·罗塞蒂和但丁·加布里埃尔·罗塞蒂的亲戚）交换的信件，发现“《诗章》深奥的表面”实际上隐藏着一个“顽固的、激进的核心”，庞德的辩护者无法轻易解释这一点（88）。乔纳斯·库尔伯格（Jonas Kurlberg）也使用传记方法来分析艾略特与一个名为“Moot”的组织的关系，该组织正在创建， 1930 年代和 1940 年代，基督教文化革命的思想基础。他的著作对理解艾略特的盎格鲁天主教主义做出了重要贡献，而后者在很大程度上仍然需要特定的历史背景。相比之下，娜塔莎·佩里扬 (Natasha Periyan) 写了一篇出色而巧妙的论点对《达洛维夫人》中智力和情感的“生命政治”的分析，她指的是与“优化人口的‘能力’”有关的政治话语（53）。¹ [第 409 页结束]佩里扬追溯了这种本质上的优生主义和阶级主义观点如何成为小说政治和社会关注的一部分，无论是作为再现还是批评。Michèle Barrett（在 WoolfNotes Online ²上）和 Gerri Kimber（在爱丁堡版凯瑟琳·曼斯菲尔德文集^3上））写下文本和编辑工作在历史化现代主义中的相关性和所发挥的作用。最后，亚历山大·霍华德和大卫·多伊奇关于福特和纽金特的文章通过重建这些作家的“历史环境”的各个方面，在将这些酷儿作家从文学史的边缘恢复过来方面发挥了重要作用（210）。就反传统者福特而言，这就是写作、创造遗产以及让那些从不归属的立场写作的人可见/保持可见的想法。相比之下，多伊奇对纽金特的看法是对“天使叛逆者”（216）的探索，作为他未出版的小说《天王星在巨蟹座》中的一个关键主题，该小说涉及实现“有效的社会政治酷儿网络”（223）。⁴

《现代主义者历史化》中的文章经过深入研究，论证有力，极其重要，因此非常有价值。作为案例研究，它们以各种有趣的方式展示了从历史主义和档案方法中可以获得什么，但对于这需要什么以及如何完成却没有进行更广泛的反思。尽管本书分为两部分——“规范现代主义者的历史化”和“新兴主题和方法”——马修·费尔德曼的问题……