Reviewed by:

• The Printed Reader: Gender, Quixotism, and Textual Bodies in Eighteenth-Century Britain by Amelia Dale
• Leah M. Thomas (bio)

The Printed Reader offers a multifaceted and chronological argument about the quixote as an impressionable reader whose reading practice reflects the printing technologies from the eighteenth to the nineteenth centuries from “a printing press literally pressing an inked surface upon the print medium (paper, or sometimes cloth)” (4, emphasis in original) to “the com mercial adoption of ‘stereotyping,’ or the casting of printing plates from plaster of paris molds” (125). These printing methods provided metaphors for reading, that is, how reading imprinted the mind as demonstrated through the trope of the quixote. Amelia Dale includes images that rein force this argument by illustrating the relationship between printing and the human body, such as an image identifying printing-press parts as comparable to body parts or clothing: “The Feet, Cheeks, Cap, ... Head, ... Hose, Garter, ... Eye of the Spindle, ... Toe of the Spindle” (5, figure 1). Moreover, as Charlotte Lennox writes, “Satire, like a magnifying Glass, may aggravate every Defect, in order to make its Deformity appear more hideous” (The Female Quixote, ed. Margaret Dalziel [1752; Oxford University Press, 1989], 277)—the Quixote thus operates “like a magnifying Glass” to accentuate print as a kind of lens through which the reader sees. Dale argues that this impression exceeds the mind, as it is both inscribed on the female body, as in The Female [End Page 303] Quixote (chapter 1), Polly Honeycombe (chapter 2), and Memoirs of Modern Philosophers (chapter 5), and gendered as feminine through the emasculation of the male body, as in Tristram Shandy (chapter 3) and The Spiritual Quixote (chapter 4).

Dale begins her analysis of the quixotic reader with Lennox’s The Female Quixote (1752), positing that “All Anglophone eighteenth-century quixotic narratives after Lennox can be read as being, to a greater or lesser extent, in conversation with her work” (19). She theorizes Arabella’s ways of looking through contemporaneous philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume in addition to the more recent work of Richard Rorty. Arabella’s reading the world she is in through the novels she has read is a kind of looking “toward the page and toward the world she lives in, but also toward mirrors, examining and eyeing the desirability of her own body, viewing, reading, and rereading herself” (19–20). Through this viewing, Arabella’s body is a text to be read through her blushes—her “body as seen, as read, and as registered” (41). Chapter 2 turns to Polly Honeycombe (1760) to demonstrate the close relationship between theatre and novels as staged performance. To substantiate the relationship between acting and reading, Dale applies Aaron Hill’s concept of the mind and body as “plastic,” a concept which also “evokes print technology” (56). This reading resonates with Earla Wilputte’s in Passion and Language in Eighteenth-Century Literature: The Aesthetic Sublime in the Work of Eliza Haywood, Aaron Hill, and Martha Fowke (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), which argues that Haywood, Hill, and Fowke incorporated the human body in their writing as a way to imprint the body onto the text, so that the text was both bodily expression and performance. Plastic and mechanical reading also forms the basis of satires of modern reading practices, as shown in chapter 5 of The Printed Reader. Bridgetina in Memoirs of Modern Philosophers (1800), which satirizes the French Revolution and Jacobinism, quotes text as readily as “set text” was duplicated (125), implying that she regurgitates rather than digests what she has read. Her thoughtless plenitude of speech extends to her body, suggest ing promiscuous sexuality (127–28). The political instability of the ideas she mechanically reproduces corresponds to an unstable embodiment that is disruptive in its promiscuity, a correspondence that underscores “a naturalization of the ‘spirit’ of the text as opposed to a (false) ethics of recitation and repetition that Bridgetina espouses and embodies” (137). Thus, the printing technique of “set text,” or “stereotyping,” reflects ideas articulated...

审核人：

• 印刷版读者：阿米莉亚·戴尔（Amelia Dale）在18世纪英国的性别，吉Qui克主义和文本身体
• 利亚·托马斯（生物学）

印刷读者提供了有关堂吉诃德作为一个敏感的读者，其阅读练习反映从十八到十九世纪的印刷技术从“印刷机名副其实的多面性和时间参数按打印介质（纸或有时是布）上的着墨表面”（4，最初强调）为“商业采用“定型”，或用巴黎模具的石膏浇铸印版”（125）。这些印刷方法为阅读提供了隐喻，也就是说，阅读是如何通过吉x德的论证来印制思想的。阿米莉亚·戴尔（Amelia Dale）的图像通过说明印刷与人体之间的关系来强化这一论点，例如，图像将印刷机的各个部分标识为可与人体或衣服相媲美的图像：“脚，脸颊，帽子，...头， ...软管，吊袜带，...纺锤的眼睛，...纺锤的脚趾”（图1中的5）。而且，正如夏洛特·伦诺克斯（Charlotte Lennox）所写的那样，“讽刺像放大镜一样，可能会加剧每个缺陷，以使其变形看起来更加可怕”（女吉x德编辑。玛格丽特·达兹[Margaret Dalziel] [1752; 牛津大学出版社，1989年]，第277页），因此，吉x德的工作方式就像“放大镜”，以强调印刷品作为读者可以看到的一种透镜。戴尔（Dale）认为，这种印象超出了头脑，因为它们都被刻在女性身上，如《女性》 [第303页] 吉x德（第1章），波莉·霍尼科姆（第2章）和《现代哲学家回忆录》（第5章）中所述。 ，并通过去雄男性身体将其性别化为女性，如《崔斯特拉姆·香迪》（第3章）和《精神堂吉x德》（第4章）中一样。

戴尔从伦诺克斯（Lennox）的《女性吉x德》（The Female Quixote）开始对吉qui德读者的分析（1752年），认为“伦诺克斯之后的所有18世纪的英语古兰经叙述都可以或多或少地理解为与她的作品对话”（19）。除了理查德·罗蒂（Richard Rorty）的最新著作之外，她还提出了阿拉贝拉通过当代哲学家托马斯·霍布斯，约翰·洛克和大卫·休ume进行研究的方式。阿拉贝拉（Arabella）通过阅读的小说来阅读自己所处的世界，这是一种“朝着页面和她所生活的世界，也向着镜子，看着并注视着自己身体的渴望，观看，阅读和看待世界的一种眼光。重读自己”（19-20）。通过这种观察，阿拉贝拉的身体就是要通过脸红读取的文本-她的“被看到，被阅读和被注册的身体”（41）。第2章转向Polly Honeycombe（1760）演示舞台表演与小说之间的紧密联系。为了证实表演与阅读之间的关系，戴尔将亚伦·希尔的身心概念称为“塑料”，这一概念也“唤起了印刷技术”（56）。这种读法与厄尔·威尔普特（Earla Wilputte）在《18世纪文学中的激情与语言：伊丽莎·海伍德，亚伦·希尔和玛莎·福克的作品中的美学崇高”（帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦，2014年）中产生了共鸣，该书认为海伍德，希尔和福克将《人体在写作中将身体压印到文本上的方式，使文本既是身体的表达又是表现。塑性和机械阅读也构成了现代阅读实践讽刺的基础，如第5章所述。印刷的读者。Bridgetina在现代哲学家的回忆录（1800），其讽刺法国大革命雅各宾和，报价文本那样容易的“设置文本”被复制（125），这意味着她反刍，而不是消化她所阅读。她漫不经心的言谈举止延伸到了她的身体，暗示着性交（127-28）。她以机械方式复制的思想在政治上的不稳定，对应于一个不稳定的体现，它破坏了滥交，这种对应强调了“文本的'精神'自然化”，而不是布里奇蒂娜的（虚假的）朗诵和重复伦理。支持”（137）。因此，“设定文字”或“定型”的印刷技术反映了所表达的思想……