|
In The Life of Charlotte Bronte(1857), the first and the most celebrated biography of novelist Charlotte Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell promoted the long-persisting romantic view of Bronte as having no connection with the rest of English society at a time when industrialization was causing much turbulence, but as having sprung naturally, like so much purple heather, out of the English countryside. Gaskell also portrayed Bronte as irreproachably proper, incapable of "unladylike" feelings or dangerous views; this was at variance with the subversive spirit Matthew Arnold accurately discerned, albeit with distance, deep within Bronte` s fiction. While correcting many of Gaskell` s errors and omissions at last, even Winifred Gerin` s Charlotte Bronte: The Evolution of Genius (1967) failed to discard Gaskell` s viewpoint. Feminists have introduced new interpretations of Bronte` s life, but it is primarily Juliet Barker who takes into account the larger world that impinged on that life-- the changing England in which old divisions of class and gender were under pressure.
|
|
The primary purpose of the passage is to
|
|
In recent decades, scholars of American literature have skillfully revealed authors` simultaneous accommodation and resistance to an increasingly commercialized, capitalized environment during the early nineteenth century. Historians of the period have not, however, fully exploited literary criticism, due to the disciplinary boundaries that mark contemporary academic research. Few historians have extensive training in critical theory and its specialized languages, and the sheer volume of work in early American history and literature challenges anyone who would master either field, much less both. Moreover, historians study people across the nation, but much literary scholarship called "American" actually examines works produced in northeastern states. And historians usually study the operations of capitalism in its details, while literary critics produce a generalized picture of literary commodification.
|
|
As discussed in the passage, the literary scholars and the historians differ in which of the following ways?
|
|
In 1755 British writer Samuel Johnson published an acerbic letter to Lord Chesterfield rebuking his patron for neglect and declining further support. Johnson`s rejection of his patron`s belated assistance has often been identified as a key moment in the history of publishing, marking the end of the culture of patronage. However, patronage had been in decline for 50 years, yet would survive, in attenuated form, for another 50. Indeed, Johnson was in 1762 awarded a pension by the Crown-a subtle form of sponsorship, tantamount to state patronage. The importance of Johnson`s letter is not so much historical as emotional; it would become a touchstone for all who repudiated patrons and for all who embraced the laws of the marketplace.
|
|
The author of the passage mentions Johnson's 1762 pension award in order to
|
|
Which of the following best describes the function of the highlighted phrase in the context of the passage as a whole? (patronage had been in decline for 50 years, yet would survive, in attenuated form, for another 50)
|
|
According to the passage, which of the following is true of an Eurasia-Africa land bridge during ice ages?
|
