Publicação
The "Great Men" of the two Queiroses: O Salústio Nogueira And O Conde de Abranhos
| Resumo: | In 1881 Teixeira de Queirós published the comedy O Grande Homem and two years later, in 1883, the novel O Salústio Nogueira: Estudo de Política contempornea “ two pieces centered both on the problematics of constitutional alternation, as well as on the problematics of political and social arrivisme. The same problematics, incidentally, had been behind Eça de Queirós’s O Conde de Abranhos, a novel written in 1879, which would only be published posthumously, in 1925. Differences notwithstanding, the three pieces show significant overlaps, and these overlaps are all the more intriguing given the authors’ignorance of each other’s works. The current essay develops a comparative analysis of the works in question, in light of the broader context of naturalist realism that framed the oeuvres of the two authors. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | de Lima, Isabel Pires |
| Assunto: | Naturalism caricature constitutional alternation comparativism Naturalismo caricatura rotativismo constitucional comparatismo |
| Ano: | 2020 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Instituição associada: | Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra |
| Idioma: | português |
| Origem: | Revista de Estudos Literários |
| Resumo: | In 1881 Teixeira de Queirós published the comedy O Grande Homem and two years later, in 1883, the novel O Salústio Nogueira: Estudo de Política contempornea “ two pieces centered both on the problematics of constitutional alternation, as well as on the problematics of political and social arrivisme. The same problematics, incidentally, had been behind Eça de Queirós’s O Conde de Abranhos, a novel written in 1879, which would only be published posthumously, in 1925. Differences notwithstanding, the three pieces show significant overlaps, and these overlaps are all the more intriguing given the authors’ignorance of each other’s works. The current essay develops a comparative analysis of the works in question, in light of the broader context of naturalist realism that framed the oeuvres of the two authors. |
|---|