笛福在《瘟疫年纪事》中对主流话语的颠覆与抑制-英语语言文学专业论文.docxVIP

iii iii However, from the New Historicist point of view, Defoe’s subversion seems to be contained in a reasonable sphere, in which implemental rationalism, utilitarian rationalism and self-fashioning of new Christians rise. Henry Foe, the narrator chosen by Defoe, to some degree, possesses the characteristics of rationalism. Lingering on infected streets, he at great pains explained the origin of plague through scientific methods with a complicated attitude to doubt the rationality of God. In addition, the hero vividly depicted in the novel, in a sense, abating the overspread of plague, is nullified as the utilitarian in Defoe’s eyes, for the motivation of his struggle is nothing more than the money and bread for survival. The discrepancy between Defoe and his hero in the book leads to a sustained irony between disordered society and rational multitude. And this discrepancy is finally resolved towards the end of the novel as the heroes resort to various self-salvations, ultimately, achieving their reconstructions with the spirit of humanism. Furthermore, this dissociation of narrator in the book is due to the conflict in the author’s belief and the decentralizing design in the text. Defoe’s belief is constituted of religious faith, natural science, and empiricist philosophy, which influences him and all his contemporary philosophers and scientists in a long term. In fact, this dissociation represents a prevailing view, reflecting the conflicting opinion about Christian duty and scientific value in time of plague. From the textual view, Foucault’s “Decentralization of Author” unfolds the hiding voices among the words and lines of text. Finally, Defoe’s subversion of the dominant discourse neither touches its deep structure nor infringes the groundwork of rational rule at all. Although the underlying force of Defoe’s dissociated thought is counted as the incompatible tension between religious certainty and scientific rationalism, the narrator strives to achieve