Titlebook: English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory; Sublime Objects of T Paul Cefalu Book 2007 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature

TINGE

書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory影響因子(影響力)學科排名




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學科排名




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory被引頻次




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory被引頻次學科排名




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory年度引用




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory年度引用學科排名




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory讀者反饋




書目名稱English Renaissance Literature and Contemporary Theory讀者反饋學科排名

Lineage

Introduction,t theoretic multiple. It is the project of this book to determine to what extent this contemporary preoccupation with ontological voids, empty sets, and anomic spaces can help illuminate the religious aspects of the work of some key seventeenth-century religious writers, including John Donne, Richard Crashaw, John Milton, and Thomas Traherne.

有節(jié)制

連詞

在前面

,Baroque Monads and Allegorical Immanence: A Reassessment of Richard Crashaw’s Imagery,thout exception. In order to make such an argument, I will be claiming further that one needs to read Crashaw’s theology as fundamentally immanentist rather than transcendent in nature, an orientation that itself is motivated by Crashaw’s embrace of some fundamental Baroque tenets.

RALES

,Tarrying with Chaos: John Milton’s , and the ,,od’s fragile absolutism. In his later work, ? i?ek returns again and again to the notion that the Christian God is Other to himself (a subject alienated from the real like any creaturely subject), but breaks through the boundaries of his imaginary “ego” by incarnating himself as Christ.

RALES

治愈

blithe

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19913-6intervention of God’s “sovereign” exceptionalism. Since such Godly intervention is ultimately contingent on the subject’s degree of backsliding—backsliding which is always tied to an exercise of creaturely free will—the outcome of this dialectical process is paradoxically to limit, or at least make

松雞